Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COM 0382.000 2006-2008
Harry Kim Mayor April 30, 2007 Countp of'aboail 891 Ulalani Street • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 • (808) 961-8211 • Fax (808) 961-6553 KONA: 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 • Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 (808)329-5226 • Fax(808)326-5663 The Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Chairperson and Members Hawaii County Council 333 Kilauea Avenue Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dixie Kaetsu Managing Director Barbara Kossow Deputy Managing Director Re: Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment: Impact Fee Study Dear Chairman Hoffman and Members of the County Council: Enclosed please find 10 copies of the Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment: Impact Fee (IPFNA) Study and a DRAFT Ordinance for Impact Fees, dated September 2006. Please forward this to the Committee on Finance. Also enclosed in the binder are comments the Planning Department received from: the American Planning Association, Harold Murata, Paul Schwind, Dean Uchida, Robert M. Hunter, and Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation. PURPOSE OF STUDY AND DEFINITION OF IMPACT FEE The purpose of the IPFNA study was to develop a Needs Assessment, which is a statutory requirement and prerequisite to the adoption of an Impact Fee Ordinance for the County of Hawaii. The requirements of an IPFNA are described in the Hawaii enabling act, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), Chapter §46-141 to 148. The study covered assessment fees for police, fire, parks, roads, sewers and solid waste. In accordance with HRS 46-142, impact fees for water were not included as the Board of Water Supply is the only authorizing body for the imposition of impact fees for water. Water commitment fees that are presently charged to new development can in fact be considered impact fees. Impact fees are monies that are collected to help pay for infrastructure and public facilities that are needed to accommodate new development, or what is defined as capacity -enhancing projects. A fair and equitable impact fee program that is passed by ordinance would assess and collect impact fees as a one-time charge from everyone who develops a parcel of land. This could be a developer who secures a change of zone to develop a property, a subdivider who secures the rights to divide his parcel into two or more lots, or a property owner who decides to construct a dwelling on his property. It would not be assessed or collected from an (NOTE: The "Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment..." and the Draft ordinance are on file in the Office of the County Clerk.) 35�, COMM. No. Ref. To: FL Ref. Date MAY_ 3�? Hawaii County is an equal opportunity provider and employer. The Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Chairperson, and Council Members April 30, 2007 Page 2 existing development. That is, if someone has an existing dwelling, they would not be charged an impact fee. Impact fees cannot be used to pay for manpower or to fix existing infrastructure or public facilities deficiencies. In other words, it cannot be used for hiring new personnel, or for maintenance or repair of existing infrastructure or facilities. Although an inclusive impact fee program would also include provisions for funding State infrastructure and public facilities such as schools and libraries, the scope of our IPFNA Study was to focus on county -owned infrastructure and public facilities. A separate enabling act would need to be passed authorizing the County of Hawaii to collect fees for a particular state agency. If an Impact Fee Ordinance were to be adopted by the County of Hawaii, the existing fair share contributions assessed at the change of zone level would cease and be replaced by impact fees. BACKGROUND The County of Hawaii Planning Department contracted Helber, Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc., to conduct an Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment (IPFNA) Study and prepare a draft ordinance. Helber, Hastert & Fee subcontracted with Duncan Associates, impact fee experts from Austin, Texas, and Alice Moon and Co., a community and public relations firm from Hilo, Hawaii, to achieve the project outcomes. The County Council requested this study and provided the initial funding of $100,000 through fiscal year 2004-05 funds. Two amendments were made to the original contract to include public participation, with supplemental funding from the Planning Department of $61,000, increasing the total contract amount to $161,000. The project contract was executed on July 1, 2005 and completed on September 27, 2006. The project was completed within the 18 - month time frame as required by the terms of the contract. Copies of this study and other relevant information including public involvement can also be downloaded from the Planning Department Web site at: htti)://www.co.hawaii.bi.usipLanningLipfna.htm. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION'S POSITION AND WHY As Mayor of the County of Hawaii, I recommend we do not proceed with an Impact Fee Ordinance for the County of Hawaii at this time. I have given considerable thought and have been in discussions with department heads on this in great detail (hence the delay in forwarding this document to you). It has been a difficult decision, given the fact that our island is faced with major infrastructure challenges and population growth evidenced by the increase in the number of building permits being approved over the last several years. It is difficult to respond with hesitation when there is a need and a possible solution is offered. The Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Chairperson, and Council Members April 30, 2007 Page 3 The following is an overview of the reasons why I recommend that we not proceed with the adoption of an Impact Fee Ordinance for the County of Hawaii: 1. Affordability and affordable housing concerns The Potential Impact Fee Summary shown in Table 1 on page 4 of the study includes calculations for single-family, multi -family, commercial, industrial and other land uses. Based on the consultants' assessment and collection of data from the applicable agencies, the maximum fees that can be assessed and collected for a single family residence (flat rate) is $16,557. Although we are not required to charge this amount and would actually charge less based on an infusion of revenues from other sources, including bonds, grants etc., impact fees could have an effect on affordable housing. To address the affordability issues, fees could always be lowered. A fair and equitable impact fee program would assess and collect fees from every developer without excluding a specific income bracket. Therefore we could not exclude a specific class of developers because of affordability without being legally challenged. The fundamental principle of impact fees is that everyone pays their fair share for the cost of new infrastructure and facilities. In other words, growth pays for the impact it creates. 2. A comprehensive infrastructure financing plan is fundamental for the successful implementation of a County -wide Impact Fee Ordinance. A comprehensive infrastructure financing plan should first be in place to ensure that an impact fee program is successfully implemented and that monies collected can be expended or encumbered within the required six years as required by State law. We do not have a comprehensive infrastructure financing plan in place. We could begin by reviewing our current capital projects (CIP) budget and begin to include and identify all possible financing options for a project as part of the CIP budget. Unless we identify how impact fees or other sources of financing can be integrated in the CIP, we may risk the failure to spend the impact fees within six years and further delay the planning and construction of needed services in a timely manner. Although our current CIP budget does include impact fee qualifying projects (new), there are also a large number non -qualifying maintenance and repair projects. We will need to clearly identify and distinguish between capacity -enhancing projects and repairs and maintenance. The need for a comprehensive infrastructure financing plan was also a reoccurring comment from the public meetings that were held during the study process. It is recognized that impact fees are not a panacea for our infrastructure problems, and that other sources of funding need to be in place to ensure completion of projects as well as to meet the needs of deficiencies that cannot be covered by impact fees. The Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Chairperson, and Council Members April 30, 2007 Page 4 The administration and County Council are exploring the concept of community facilities districts (CFDs) as another funding tool for new public infrastructure, more specifically roads in Waikoloa among other projects. In addition, the use of property tax revenue is another alternative in two ways. First, tax revenues could be used to directly fund infrastructure, and second, the revenue increases the County's ability to leverage and to sell general obligation bonds which can then be used for infrastructure. 3. Communities where there are major infrastructure and public facility deficiencies may not see immediate benefit from impact fees. One of the districts with the most severe infrastructure deficiencies is Puna, where there are many private substandard subdivisions with private roads and minimum public facilities. In Puna, most arterial and collector roads are state or private. Because impact fees would be imposed on existing lots, persons obtaining a building permit to construct a home on a lot in a substandard subdivision would pay the impact fee. However, since impact fees can only be used for County projects and cannot be used to improve the level of standard or services for private substandard subdivisions where there are private roads and where no public facilities exist, there will be minimal benefits to residents in Puna from the payment of these fees. Although an impact fee program could be implemented in some districts where benefits would be visible, districts such as Puna (above) and Ka`u, where there are a number of private substandard subdivisions with private roads and minimum public facilities, would not see immediate benefit from impact fees. 4. Need for additional personnel Finally, we all recognize the overarching need for personnel to move the planning and construction of projects to fruition. We will need to make the commitment to add staff positions for project managers who can a) manage and oversee projects, b) search for and secure supplemental funding sources for their projects, c) encumber and spend the monies we receive in the required timeframe, whether they be impact fees and other funding sources, and d) carry projects to completion in accordance with our contracts. THE IPFNA STUDY AS A TOOL IN COUNTY COUNCIL'S DECISION MAKING PROCESS The IPFNA Study is divided into three major sections: Part I is the policy analysis where there is discussion on the key policy issues (page 15) and the maximum fees chargeable. These issues need to be addressed and agreed upon to tailor an ordinance to local needs, including the decision on how much to assess and collect. The Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Chairperson, and Council Members April 30, 2007 Page 5 Part II includes the rationale for how the fees were calculated for police, fire, roads, sewer and solid waste. Part III is the appendix, which includes references such as the State law, definitions, frequently asked questions, and results of the public workshops, which can be very helpful in furthering understanding of impact fees. Should the Council decide to proceed with an Impact Fee Ordinance for the County or possibly model a program for an individual district or community, consideration should be given to the costs for developing a `localized' ordinance and administrating the program, including creating a collection process. Current administrative procedures need to be retooled and additional staff would be required to ensure the objectives of the new program are achieved. I am reminded, after rereading the section on Lessons Learned (page 27) and Next Steps/Implementation (page 29) that the following overarching theme permeated aspects of the public discussion during this project: "...impact fees alone will not solve our infrastructure problems; they are only one source for partial financing of new infrastructure and public facilities. Impact fees need to be looked at as a solution in perspective with all financing options, which need to be identified and implemented by decision -makers and agencies ... a more extensive and comprehensive discussion of funding options for new infrastructure and public facilities should take place, with the consideration of impact fees in the context of other financing tools." Should you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Chris Yuen, Planning Director at 961-8288 ext. 200. ZAlo , Harry Ki MAYOR Enclosure: 10 copies - Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment: Impact Fee Study and a DRAFT Ordinance for Impact Fees, dated January 2006 cc: Scott Ezer, Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Clancy Mullen and Jim Duncan, Duncan Associates Alice Moon, Alice Moon and Company Dixie Kaetsu, Mayor's Office Christopher Yuen, Planning Department Susan Gagorik, Planning Department Roy Takemoto, Mayor's Office The Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Chairperson, and Council Members April 30, 2007 Page 6 Casey Jarman, County Clerk Bill Takaba, Finance Department Pat Engelhard, Department of Parks and Recreation Chief Lawrence Mahuna, Police Department Chief Darryl Oliveira, Fire Department Bruce McClure, Department of Public Works Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Department of Environmental Management Hawaii County Planning Commission Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment (IPFNA) Study Final Comments Received by Planning Department 1. American Planning Association — Comments dated July 19, 2006 2. Harold Murata — Email dated July 31, 2006 3. Paul Schwind — Email received August 14, 2006 (includes March 6, 2006 email attachment) 4. Dean Uchida, Land Use Research Foundation — Letter dated September 11, 2006 5. Robert M. Hunter — Letter dated September 18, 2006 6. Keith H. Kato, Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation — Letter dated September 20, 2006 SIL 1 201)fi COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING The following comments are submitted on behalf of the American Planning Association, DEPT, Hawaii Chapter, regarding the agency review draft of the "Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment: Impact Fee Study", for the County of Hawaii Planning Department, July, 2006, as well as the accompanying draft of the proposed "Chapter 33, IMPACT FEES." The American Planning Association, and its various Chapters, hereinafter "APA" established 8 policy guides for Impact Fees. A copy of those policies, and the accompanying standards were provided to the consultants in January. While more detailed comments on the various policies and standards are presented below, immediately following is a summary recommendation on necessary changes. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The Study needs to more fully explore the relationship between the County's General Plan, community plans, and the proposed CIP programs. 2. The Study needs to more fully address the sources of revenue and funding for the various public facilities. 3. The Study needs to identify the policy implications of the various sources and uses of funds, including the implications of establishing fees at a maximum legally defensible level versus various proportional shares (e.g.: 20%, 40%, and so on). 4. The public dialogue among various interest groups needs to address those interests not represented in discussions to date, as well as including the 3 items identified immediately above. 5. In light of the number of approved single-family lots upon which there or no improvements, and therefore, no impact on public facilities, imposition of the fee should be made a condition precedent to the issuance of a building permit, not subdivision approval. 6. The draft ordinance needs to provide for the ability to return fees in the event the fee payer does not construct the improvement. POLICY 1: APA National and Chapters support state enabling legislation that establishes clear and concise standards for the adoption and use of impact fees consistent with this policy. COMMENT: The enabling act was established by the State over a decade ago. The study and draft ordinance subject to this review are the County of Hawaii's attempt to comply with the provisions of the statute. POLICY 2: APA National and Chapters encourage consideration of the use of impact fees as a means to provide additional resources for an adequate public infrastructure and services only as they relate to the needs of new development. COMMENT: This reinforces the need for an impact fee to be only one of a number of financial resources. While the study notes some additional funding sources such as the county general funds and State funds for certain facilities, a more extensive review of a comprehensive system for funding public capital improvements should be provided. POLICY 3: APA National and Chapters support the use of impact fees as a standardized method for ensuring that new development pays its fair share of the cost of public infrastructure. COMMENT: A critical issue is an appropriate determination of fair share. The study proposes a legally defensible maximum, but the dissemination of information on a comprehensive capital improvement funding system and a discussion on the policy implications of various funding mechanism has yet to occur. POLICY 4: APA National and Chapters encourage the use of impact fees to pay for facilities where a rational nexus can be established. COMMENT: It is believed the nexus has been appropriately established in the needs assessments study. There is no evidence of linkage to the County's General Plan or any community plans. We believe it is a serious flaw to not explicitly address the proposed capital improvement system in terms of both community plans and an overall financial plan, identifying all sources and uses of CIP funds. POLICY 5: APA National and Chapters believe that impact fees should be used in the context of community -wide plans and programs for financing public facilities and services, and ensure the adequacy of public facilities to serve future development. COMMENT: While the study notes some additional funding sources such as the county general funds and State funds for certain facilities, a more extensive review of a comprehensive system for funding public capital improvements should be provided. POLICY 6: APA National and Chapters oppose requiring voter approval to establish fees for mitigation of impacts on public facilities and services where such fees are imposed pursuant to a legislatively approved program in compliance with APA standards for the adoption and use of impact fees. COMMENT: The study and proposed ordinance comply with this policy. This policy was established to avoid subverting a qualified impact fee program through a cumbersome procedure, a procedure which may not comply with Constitutional requirements of fairness and equal protection. POLICY 7: APA National and Chapters support continued dialogue between local planning agencies, the general public, and the development community to discuss the public costs associated with new development, reaching an understanding on the calculation of such costs, and establishing alternative means for financing these costs, including the use of impact fees. COMMENT: While there has been an excellent start on a dialog among the various interests, certain key development interest (commercial, industrial, and resort) may not have been adequately represented in the discussions to date. A continuing dialog, to include the under -represented interests, needs to occur to begin establishing the amount of the fee that is fair, rather than simply legally defensible. LL� POLICY 8: As a framework for imposing fees, local jurisdictions are encouraged to develop, adopt, and implement capital improvement programs consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan with consideration given to other funding mechanisms. COMMENT: While the study proposes a system for the use of funds collected by impact fees, as well as a plan for the various facilities, there is no evidence of linkage to the County's General Plan or any community plans. We believe it is a serious flaw to not explicitly address the proposed capital improvement system in terms of both community plans and an overall financial plan, identifying all sources and uses of CII' funds. APA adopted the following standards for Impact Fees: IMPACT FEE STANDARDS • The imposition of a fee must be rationally linked (the "rational nexus") to an impact created by a particular development and the demonstrated need for related capital improvements pursuant to a capital improvement plan and program. • Some benefit must accrue to the development as a result of the payment of a fee. • The amount of the fee must be a proportionate fair share of the costs of the improvements made necessary by the development and must not exceed the cost of the improvements. • A fee cannot be imposed to address existing deficiencies except where they are exacerbated by new development. • Funds received under such a program must be segregated from the general fund and used solely for the purposes for which the fee is established. • The fees collected must be encumbered or expended within a reasonable timeframe to ensure that needed improvements are implemented. • The fee assessed cannot exceed the cost of the improvements, and credits must be given for outside funding sources (such as federal and state grants, developer initiated improvements for impacts related to new development, etc.) and local tax payments which fund capital improvements, for example. • The fee cannot be used to cover normal operation and maintenance or personnel costs, but must be used for capital improvements, or under some linkage programs, affordable housing, job training, child care, etc. • The fee established for specific capital improvements should be reviewed at least every two years to determine whether an adjustment is required, and similarly the capital improvement plan and budget should be reviewed at least every 5 to 8 years. • Provisions must be included in the ordinance to permit refunds for projects that are not constructed, since no impact will have manifested. • Impact fee payments are typically required to be made as a condition of approval of the development, either at the time the building or occupancy permit is issued. COMMENT: We are concerned about the conformance with 2 of the above standards. First, the proposed program assesses fees at the time of final subdivision, rather than building permit approval for single-family lots. Impact fees are assessed to address impacts. Historically in Hawaii County, large numbers of single-family lots have been w n 7131106 EMAIL Dear Susan: v" My comments are: A high tech solution, such as this proposal, is not easy to understand for the common folk or the working class resident. Every development is supposed to be assessed by an'equitable impact fee system' but then there are exceptions and exemptions. The remainder of the developments is subject to an 'equitable impact fee system' - one that uses complex variables and statistics to rationalize the main formulas. The mathematics for the main infrastructure items (road, police, park, firelems, solid waste wastewater facilities) are followed by more algebra to calculate the equitable impact fees. The main text and the subtexts throw me in a loop and off the track as I try to simulate a hypothetical situation. I am referring to the entire Section 36-9. Independent fee calculation in the Agency Review Draft- July 2006. The fact that an applicant can dispute the impact fee administrator's determination by appealing to the County Council reveal aspects of vulnerability and uncertainty of the proposal's effectiveness. A prevailing principle of this proposal is 'fairness'. That implies reasonableness, impartiality, non -bias, to name a few. Who would be the impact fee administrator to carry out the duties? Would it be a planner or a finance professional? Please refer to Section 36-8 Affordable housing deferral, paragraph (d), items 1 and 2. Would the median values of HUD be for the County of Hawaii or the values be segregated by the various assessment districts? Would it make any difference? Please refer to Section 38-7 Fee determinations. Paragraph (a) fee schedule. Intuitively, the values seem lopsided - especially the allocation for Parks. All land use types have a need - more so in the urbanlhigh density areas. Is there somewhere (perhaps Section 36-2 Intent) that this supplemental collection is a fractional income of the total financial need of the County? The marginal benefits may not be discernable when most people are focused on basic deficiencies. I don't like impact fees to finance public projects, but in the absence of viable alternatives, give it a shot and work through the myriad of challenges. Sincerely, Harold Murata 3229244 AUG 14 2006 From: Paul Schwind [mailto:schwangl@hawaii.rr.com] -RECEIVED Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 5:36 PM CnU"lry OF HAWAI, To: Christopher Yuen "title Cc: Alice Moon; Susan Gagorik; Clancy Mullen; Amy Gail Self an. Subject: Re: IPFNA [Big Island Impact Fees] Chris, Thanks to your consultants for sending me the Final Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment Study and Draft County of Hawaii Impact Fees Ordinance prepared by Duncan Associates. The County is to be commended for commissioning this major effort to fund infrastructure improvements based on rational nexus principles. Although I did comment at some length earlier, the Final Study prompts me now to touch on a few more points in a relatively brief rather than exhaustive manner. I have incorporated my earlier comments below this message for your records on this project. 1. Needs assessment. I note that the draft Ordinance does not appear to include a specific provision approving or adopting the needs assessment study. I would recommend such a provision, pursuant to HRS sec. 46-143(a); cf. draft Ord. sec. 36-3(c) (making a finding re the study instead). 2. Assessment zones. Pursuant to the Study, the draft Ordinance does not establish differential impact fee rates for the several sub -area benefit zones. Although the expenditure of funds within each benefit zone is generally limited to no less than 80% of the amount collected within the zone, see draft Ord. sec. 36-10(d), the fee schedule is uniform for each land use type - facility system combination, sec. 36-7(a). The Study at 17 rationalizes this county -wide assessment of fee rates in the interest of simplification and due to unavailability of differential cost data. Chapter 7 of the Study, for example, has calculated vehicle -miles of travel (VMT) by land use type (Table 17), vehicle -miles of capacity (VMC) by road segment (Table 20), system -wide capacity demand (VMCIVMT) ratios (Table 19), and net road cost per unit by land use type (Table 28), all on an island -wide rather than benefit -zone basis. I respectfully suggest that in this regard, the Study did not go far enough, and that HRS sec. 46- 144(2) requires both "[c]ollection and expenditure [to] be localized to provide a reasonable benefit to the development." This can be done by "localizing" the impact fee rates to reflect conditions in each benefit zone. Arguably, the impact of each new unit of land development on the cost of eligible infrastructure, e.g. roads, would be greater in West Hawaii, where settlement is more spread out, distances are greater, and existing roadway capacity is already more overburdened than in East Hawaii. 3. Proportionate share. It is also troubling that the Study does not appear to allocate impact fee expenditures in proportion to the amount of additional infrastructure capacity utilized by new development as opposed to existing development. See, e.g., Table 29, in which the total CIP cost of road segment improvements is allocated on an "all or nothing" basis to impact fees solely according to whether the improvements are impact fee eligible (capacity -expanding) or not. HRS 46-143(d) explicitly requires proportional assessment of impact fees: "An impact fee shall be substantially related to the needs arising from the development and shall not exceed a (emphasis added). It is counter -intuitive that 100% of each eligible improvement in Table 29 is required solely to accommodate new development, since these improvement projects appear already to be in the County's six-year CIP budget, arguably at least in part due to existing capacity deficiencies. ®19235 The comparison of potential impact fee revenues and planned CIP expenditures by type of facility (Table 3, page 5) is no substitute for the required analysis. Indeed, Table 3 facially suggests that the proposed impact fees for Parks, Fire/EMS, and Wastewater have been set too high, while the fees for Roads, Police, and Wastewater have been set too low. For appropriate methodology to calculate impact fees based on the proportionate needs generated by forecast new development, see generally Chapter 33A, Revised Ordinances of Honolulu ("Impact Fees for Traffic and Roadway Improvements in Ewa"), and specifically secs. 33A-1.5 and -1.6(a) and (b), and references to the Ewa Highway Master Plan and its Proportionate Share Study cited under "Ewa highway impact fee program" in sec. 33A-1.2 therein. 4. State facilities. The amount of impact fee revenue required to be collected and expended by benefit zone is further skewed by the apparent decision not to assess impact fees to address State infrastructure capacity deficiencies, specifically needed highway improvements; see draft Ord. sec. 36-7(a) and table; cf. Study at 3-4, 26 and Table 10, and 44 and Table 28. Although the Study does not elaborate on the point, in 2004 the HRS enabling statute was amended [Appendix G; sec. 46-143(c) and (d)] to delete the previous restriction limiting impact fee expenditures only to the Counties. In the same year, a new HRS chapter was added [Appendix H; sec. 264-1231, amended in 2006, authorizing the Counties to assess, and the Department of Transportation to receive, impact fees for state highway improvements. These amendments will be extremely important in the future for coordinated funding of needed roadway improvements without regard to State/County jurisdiction. Meanwhile, a working group established under the State Auditor in 2005 is still grappling with whether and how to allow the Department of Education to assess and collect school impact fees; see htto://www.state.hi.us/auditor/meetings.him. 5. Time of collection. Pursuant to the Study, the draft Ordinance provides that all impact fees shall be determined and paid at the time of final plan approval or issuance of building permit(s) for a development, see draft Ord. sec. 36-5(b). This provision should be clarified to specify that the payment be made upon the later of these two events in the entitlement process. Customarily, impact fees are collected as part of the final and ministerial stage of the process, i.e., upon issuance of building permits. However, draft Ord. sec. 36-5(b) contains a proviso carving out an exception for new [post -enactment] single-family lots, for which impact fees are to be paid at an earlier stage, upon final subdivision approval. Corporation Counsel's opinion notwithstanding (Study at 12), this proviso seems somewhat at variance both with the enabling statute (HRS sec. 46-146) and the Study's apparent conclusion at 17 that, absent impacts on infrastructure from the building of homes, "the fee should not be collected until the building permit is issued." Incidentally, how will the time of collection for agricultural and agricultural -residential subdivisions be handled under the draft Ordinance -- as single-family lots, or like the other land uses? 6. Drebick v. City of Olympia. This case from Washington state (126 P.3d 802 (Wash. 2006)) bears watching. 1 understand that a petition for certiorari was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court on August 10, in which the questions presented were whether the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" tests of Nottan and Dolan apply to legislatively enacted monetary impact fee assessments such as those proposed for the County of Hawaii. To date the Supreme Court has not extended these tests beyond ad hoc land dedications, and the states are split in their interpretations of the applicability of Nollan and Dolan to monetary and legislative exactions. The Hawaii courts have not ruled on the question. If the Supreme Court takes the case, its eventual opinion will affect government's approach to impact fees, one way or the other. Paul J. Schwind, Esq. 2033 Nuuanu Avenue, Apt. 22-B Honolulu, HI 96817 (808) 523-7614, cell (808) 277-3571 ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Schwind To: Susan Gagorik Cc: Christopher Yuen Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 5:40 PM Subject: Re: Big Island Impact Fee Study Hi Susan, I'd be pleased to correspond with you regarding impact fee matters, if this would be helpful to you. However, I won't be able to attend one of the workshops. I'm working for the State Senate now, and impact fees are a bit remote from my present scope of duties. But we can have this conversation under the glare of moonlight, so to speak ... Honolulu's Ewa traffic impact fee ordinance does address exemptions, see ROH sec. 33A- 1.10(a), for the limited circumstances of alteration or expansion of existing dwellings, construction of accessory buildings or structures that will not cause an increase in vehicular trips, or replacement of existing buildings or structures. The rationale is that the exemptions are only for building permit work that creates no additional impact. Otherwise, the assessment of the impact fee would violate the principles of proportional share and rational nexus that underlie the ordinance. That said, I'm not sure whether the suggested exemption for first dwellings in Puna would pass muster. In theory, if each dwelling built adds a bit of impact to the infrastructure system, all should pay proportionately under the impact fee framework. A similar question arose on Oahu among some of the housing developers regarding whether "affordable" units should be exempt from the Ewa impact fee. Some said "yes" as a matter of policy, and others said "no" on grounds of fairness. I believe they're still divided on that point, although I don't think anyone is pursuing it. I'm not aware of any case law that specifically rules against an impact fee exemption such as you propose. That doesn't mean it's not out there somewhere. I did a quick Lexis search of five years' worth of state court cases and didn't find too much on point. In California, a biosolids impact fee that provided for exemption, where a permittee could establish lack of impact on county infrastructure, was upheld on other grounds. See County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. County of Kern, 127 Cal.AppAth 1544, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 28 (Cal. App. 2005). In Washington, a county school impact fee was held neither incorrectly calculated nor unconstitutional where the school district was authorized to use discretion in determining the fee, which could be different for comparable units from one district to another. See Wellington River Hollow LLC v. King County, 54 P.3d 213 (Wash. App. 2002). There is Hawaii case law that establishes a dual rational nexus test for defining when a "fee" is not a fee, but a tax, which the Counties are not allowed to assess without legislative authorization (except for property taxes). See State v. Medeiros, 89 Hawaii 361, 367, 973 P.2d 736, 742 (1999). One thought on creating the exemption the Mayor has in mind might be to simply delay implementation of an impact fee ordinance, once adopted, to provide a window of opportunity for all lot owners to "beat the fee" and seek building permit approval without fee assessment prior to a date certain. Not very elegant, but perhaps less vulnerable to challenge on grounds of inequitable treatment of certain classes of fee payers. Or another way might be to exempt all lots legally subdivided as of the effective date of the ordinance from assessment of the fee. Granted, that might defeat the purpose of raising revenue for infrastructure to service those thousands of unimproved lots. But in Vermont, a grandfather clause was upheld protecting a developer from new, higher recreation impact fees where payment of the previous, lower amount had been discharged by credit received as a condition of final subdivision approval. See MBL Associates v. City of South Burlington, 776 A.2d 432 (Vt. 2001). "Softening" the impact fee by progressive rates based on size of dwelling might be justified, again if the rate is proportionate to the amount of impact. Your needs assessment studies would have to establish that bigger homes cause bigger impacts, and so on. An excellent primer on how to construct a valid impact fee ordinance in accordance with Hawaii's enabling statute is the LURF 1992 report, "Impact Fees in Hawaii," available on their website on the "Research" page at http://www.lurf.ora/docs/ImpFees.pdf. See, e.g., pages 34-35 re Method to Challenge the Fee and Exemptions, and Equal Application ("The ordinance should assess fees on every development that creates a need for the infrastructure similarly"). Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have further questions. Paul J. Schwind, Esq. 2033 Nuuanu Avenue, Apt. 22-B Honolulu, HI 96817 (808) 523-7614, cell (808) 277-3571 *w_ From: Paul Schwind [mailto:schwangl@hawaii.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 5:00 AM To: Clancy Mullen Cc: Christopher Yuen Subject: Big Island Impact Fee Study Dear Mr. Mullen, I came across your Policy Analysis Memorandum for the County of Hawaii Planning Department on the website of the Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii (LURF). I was formerly the Director of Research and Legal Affairs for LURF, and devoted considerable time and effort to impact fee questions while in that capacity. I came into LURF at the end of the long process of getting Honolulu's traffic impact fee ordinance for Ewa adopted (cited in your memorandum]. We were, of course, also aware of your firm's work on school impact fees for the Hawaii Department of Education (DOE) around the same time. As you no doubt know, the DOE is still resisting your firm's recommendation in 2001 to replace its arbitrary "fair share contribution" approach with a bona fide impact fee system. The County of Hawaii is to be commended for taking up the impact fee issue in earnest. Hopefully they will move farther ahead with it than the DOE has. No developer likes paying more in taxes and fees, but they do tend to prefer certainty, predictability, and fairness over arbitrary and inequitable ad hoc exactions. Your policy memorandum is concise and to the point, and also clarifies several features of Hawaii's impact fee enabling statute in a lucid and useful way. For example, see the treatment of level of service pricing, credit for general taxes paid to remedy capacity deficiencies, credit for anticipated future payments for capital improvements, and credit for past property tax payments from which the developer received no reasonable benefit (pages 8-9). The complexity of impact fee assessment argues strongly for detailed and careful preparation of needs assessment studies, as required under the Hawaii enabling statute. A critical issue is establishing the proper assessment and benefit districts for such studies, neither too large nor too small. In that regard, while the use of island -wide average costs for assessment purposes may be appropriate, your memorandum's suggestion of only two benefit districts for the entire Big Island concerns me. It might be better to use something analogous to the judicial districts into which Hawaii County is divided; see, e.g., table 1, page 4. That would be similar to the approach Honolulu took in adopting its Ewa traffic impact fee ordinance, which limits impact fee collection and expenditure to the Ewa development plan area, one of eight such areas on Oahu (a much smaller island) One point that did not come across clearly to me at page 11 was the statement that only a fraction of the current "fair share assessments" have been collected because land has not yet been subdivided. If that is the case, how can substantially more funds be collected at the time of building permits? These normally follow rather than precede subdivision, which would still remain a condition precedent to collection of impact fees. Do you expect a substantial number of people to be seeking building permits on unsubdivided land if fair share assessments are replaced with impact fees? Would it be more correct to state that fair share assessments cannot be collected because thousands of lots on the Big Island are already subdivided but cannot be built upon because they lack infrastructure? If you need a reference at pages 6-7 to a recent state supreme court case that applied Dolan principles to legislatively adopted impact fees, you might want to take a look at Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates Ltd. Partnership, 135 S.W.3d 620 (Tex. 2004). There, the court held that a compensable taking occurred where a municipal land development code failed to make an "individualized determination" between a repaving requirement and the impact of a subdivision on the roadway system. All in all, an excellent argument for careful preparation of needs assessment studies pursuant to [or preceding] legislative enactment of an impact fee ordinance. I hope the above comments will be helpful. Please let me know if I may be of further assistance. Paul J. Schwind, Esq. 2033 Nuuanu Avenue, Apt. 22-B Honolulu, HI 96817 (808) 523-7614, cell (808) 277-3571 LAND USE RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF HAWAII Ino Bishop street, Ste.1928 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Phone 521-4717 Fax 5,36-0132 September 8, 2oo6 Mr. Chris Yuen, Director County of Hawaii, Planning Department tot Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96785 Dear Mr. Yuen, Subject: Comments on the Infrastructure and Public Facility Needs Assessment, Impact Fee Study for the County of Hawaii This is a follow-up to the August i5a', meeting in Hilo regarding the subject project. As you know, we participated on the Local Resource Team (LRT) to assist in vetting out issues on the project. The role of the LRT was to provide a critical, non -bias assessment of the study. It is in this context that we provide the following comments. Our overall concern is that the study neither provides an overview nor explanation of how the proposed impact fees would work with the existing planning and budgetary process for planning and constructing infrastructure on the County of Hawaii. Planning for adequate infrastructure is a very basic municipal service. Very simply, the General/Development/Community Plan process identify areas of growth to accommodate projected future population distribution within the County of Hawaii. These plans are a forward look as to how and were growth will be accommodated. A critical component of this process is the County's Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Budget for the projected budgetary cycle. Usually, the CIP budget identifies and prioritizes basic infrastructure to accommodate future growth. Funding the of this infrastructure is usually done through grants, aides, various sources of tax revenues (i.e. real property tax, vehicle weight tax, fuel tax, etc.) and other fees. Impact fees, essentially provide another alternative source of funding for basic infrastructure. We realize that the scope of this project was established by the County Council and primarily focused on impact fees. However, through this process, we have found that impact fees need to be viewed as one element in a range of various municipal financing options to fund basic infrastructure. For example, impact fees are generally used to mitigate impacts from a proposed new developments based on the existing level of service of the infrastructure. Impact fees cannot be used to address deficiencies in existing level of service. Existing deficiencies are more appropriately addressed through 019234 an improvement district or community facilities district funded by special assessments or tax increment financing. Without a comprehensive assessment of the infrastructure needs and various funding alternatives, it is difficult to image how the County of Hawaii will address its future infrastructure needs. Furthermore, the perception, based on this draft study, is that impact fees are the only option the County has to assist in funding future infrastructure needs. Also, sections of the draft propose that the County consider providing "credits" to certain income groups on impact fees. These credits will be paid by the County; however, there is no mention of where or how these additional funds will be generated. We would strongly suggest that the Study include a section or at a minimum a discussion on how the County will fund infrastructure using different municipal funding tools that are available. We do have some concern on the methodology as the calculations based on providing increased capacity to accommodate the proposed project are not tied to specific projects in the impacted area. In fact, the proposed 60/4o distribution of revenues (6o% stays within the assessed area and 40% is distributed outside of the immediate area) point to an overall problem of potentially having a project on one end of the island paying for improvements on the other end of the island. This tends to raise questions regarding the rational nexus issue of impact fees. It would appear to be easier to understand the need for impact fees if it were tied into specific projects that were going to increase capacity. In addition, it would allow for the public to understand how much or what percent of the project costs were going to be borne by impact fees. How the remaining project costs will be covered should also be discussed because if impact fees are being collected for an improvement, yet the other sources of funding have not be identified or committed, the improvement will not be constructed with the money collected by the impact fees. We also suggest that the study include a discussion of the specific projects to be funded by impact fees collected for Roads; Parks; Solid Waste; Police; Fire; and Wastewater in each of the four (4) Benefit districts. For those funds that are to be used outside of the benefit district, those projects should also be identified. At the August 15th meeting, there was some discussion regarding the possible implementation of impact fees on a regional basis as opposed to island wide as is being contemplated by this study. There seemed to be some degree of acceptance of this as a model for Hawaii County similar to the Ewa Regional Road Impact fees on Oahu. We support the notion of proceeding with a model to test the implementation of impacts fees for Hawaii County; however, we firmlybelieve that the concerns we have raised throughout this process need to be addressed. Planning, project prioritizing, and a rational and disciplined funding mechanism need to be done in conjunction with this pilot project or model application. We notice that government in general across the state are shifting more and more of the infrastructure cost burden on to new developments. Most of the developments in recent years have paid for all infrastructure costs related to their development through the construction and dedication of internal roads, sewer, water, and drainage systems to the County. Only schools and regional road way improvements were not paid for by the developer, although the State Department of Education does require either an improved (vacant) school site or fair share contribution for the schools required for the project. Now, throughout the state, there is a growing demand for "concurrency" requirements for developments. In most cases, concurrency means having all infrastructure in place before a project is built. That means all roads, schools, parks and other facilities that may not be the responsibility of the developer need to be constructed before a project is built. If concurrency and impact fees are going to be tools to assist the County of Hawaii deal with growth, then a meaningful discussion should occur on the roles and responsibilities of the following: t. County Government to plan, budget and implement; 2. County Residences on how real property taxes and fees are used to fund government infrastructure; and, g. New Homeowners and Businesses on how much of the cost of their new home or office will be going to pay for government infrastructure. Finally, from a public policy standpoint, if the County is or has reduced real property taxes for property owners in the County of Hawaii, and there is a recognition of deficiencies in existing infrastructure as well as need for new infrastructure in projected growth areas, how does the County justify returning tax revenues to property owners while forcing new developments to be responsible for all or portion of new infrastructure which will benefit the public as well as the specific project? We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at 8o8.521.4717 or via e-mail at duchidal@lurf.org. Sincerely, fi", Dean Uchida, Executive Director f 20,06 SEP 20 prn I % �! ROBERT M. HUNTER 65-1116 HOKU'ULA ROAD. • P.O. Box 2709 • KAMUELA, FU+wm'i 96743 ? PHONE (808) 885-4194 •FAX (808) 885-4114 l� r c_ E-MAIL: bob@webpatent.com September 18, 2006 Chris Yuen, Planning Director Hawai'i County Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 Subject: Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment: Impact Fee Study County of Hawai'i Impact Fee Ordinance Dear Chris, Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment (IPFNA): Impact Fee Study and proposed County of Hawai'i Impact Fee Ordinance. I have enjoyed working with your staff, with the other members of the IPFNA Local Resource Team and with the County's consultants, Duncan Associates in association with Helber, Hastert & Fee, Planners, and Alice Moon. The County's consultants have done a wonderful job, as is their practice, in tailoring an impact fee system to the unique situation we face in Hawai'i County. Under the proposed system, the County would charge impact fees to new development for the purpose of providing new or expanded public capital facilities required to serve that development. Specifically, Hawai'i County would charge developers a portion of the cost of increasing the capacity of (e.g., adding lanes to) major roads and building and equipping new fire stations, police stations, parks, residential solid waste facilities and wastewater systems to serve new development. As proposed, the system would have the following important features: • Impact fees would be progressive in that higher fees would be charged to developments that impose greater demands on County infrastructure systems. If the County desired, those who are building large houses could be charged more than those who are building smaller houses. • Qualifying first-time home buyers and owner -builders would not have to pay the impact fees until they sold their homes. This innovative feature of the proposed system addresses the local income disparities and lack of affordable housing in Hawai'i County. • The consultant's impact fee study provides justification for the County's charging much higher impact fees than the proposed ordinance recommends, particularly for roads and parks. There is no question that the proposed impact fees levels meet all legal requirements. • Impact fees would fund some, but not all, of the costs of new development. The County wit] have to use all of the tools in its tool box to address the severe infrastructure deficit facing the County. Development of a comprehensive infrastructure financing plan that considers all potential sources of income should go hand in hand with implementation of an impact fee system. 0190219 , Chris Yuen, Planning Director September 18, 2006 Page two There is no denying that the calculations underlying any impact fee system are complicated. For this reason, myths and misunderstandings about the proposed Hawai'i County impact fee system will have to be dispelled before such a rational and fair system of infrastructure funding can be implemented. A significant amount of public education will be needed to overcome misguided objections to impact fees, a tool that has been successfully used for decades by thousands of communities all across our Nation as one tool to address infrastructure funding needs. Below are examples of the kinds of information that could be included in a public education program. The impact fee is a progressive technique for funding infrastructure, one that protects residents at the lower end of the income scale Under the terms of the proposed Hawai'i County impact fee ordinance, the developer of a typical big box store, like a Wal-Mart or Costco, would be charged an impact fee of about $1,500,000 to pay for capacity it would consume in County public facilities. The developer of an unsewered subdivision of single family detached dwellings would be charged about $8,700 per dwelling. Qualifying first-time home buyers and owner -builders would be charged nothing. They would have to pay the fee only after the house is sold or no longer occupied as a principal residence. So, in effect, developers and speculators would pay impact fees and people who buy affordable homes to live in them would not. That is progressive, not regressive. The County could charge developers who are building large houses higher impact fees than developers who are building smaller houses While the current draft ordinance calls for single family dwellings to be charged a flat rate impact fee, under an alternative approach, the County could charge higher impact fees to the developers of larger houses than smaller houses. For example, an unsewered single family dwelling with 1,000 or less square feet of floor area could be charged about $800 less than the flat rate, while an unsewered single family dwelling with 4,000 or over sq ft of floor area could be charged about $3,200 more than the flat rate. This approach is available if the impact fee is charged at the time of building permit, when the size of the dwelling is known. This would make the County impact fee system even more progressive. The developers of unsewered multi -family units would be charged about $3,300 per unit less than the single family dwelling flat rate under the proposed plan, another progressive aspect of the proposed system. Ordinary people would qualify for the deferral of impact fees for affordable housing The proposed ordinance calls for the County to make an interest-free, no -time -limit loan of the impact fee amount to any first-time home buyer or owner builder who can qualify for the affordable housing deferral. The loan would have to be repaid only if the house is sold or no longer occupied as a principal residence. In order to qualify, the combined adjusted gross income of the purchasers of the home could not exceed 140 percent of median (middle) adjusted gross income for households in Hawai'i County. In 2006, the cutoff would be a household income of $77,400. If two persons in the household were working, they could each make $19 per hour, working full time, 50 weeks per year, Chris Yuen, Planning Director September 18, 2006 Page three and still qualify. The other rule is that the purchase price (or estimated land value plus construction cost) cannot exceed 100 percent of the median home sales price in Hawai'i County for the last 12 month period. In 2006, the cutoff would be a house price of about $440,000. Both of these thresholds can be set by the County Council. The results of the most recent census of Hawai'i County by the U.S. Census Bureau revealed that about 80 percent of the households in the County earn less than 140 percent of the median household income. Using those numbers, about 80 percent of the households in the County should be able to qualify for deferral of impact fees. The proposed impact fee system could not be more progressive and even hope to achieve its goal of funding a significant portion of the cost of increasing infrastructure capacity to accommodate new development. Lack of funding is one important reason for the County's infrastructure shortfall While it is true that the State and County have not been able to build many new roads in Hawai'i County lately, it is also true that more road capacity is needed than there is money available to build it. Take the State Waimea Bypass and the Kawaihae Rd Bypass, for example. The estimated cost of those two roads alone is $270 million, more than a quarter of a billion dollars. Construction of those two roads would consume all of the Federal and State highway grant money coming to the entire island for five years in a row. During that period, there would be no money for the Ane Keohokalole Hwy (Kona Mid -Level Rd), Queen Kaahumanu Hwy widening, Palani Bypass Hwy, Kealakehe Parkway Extension, Keanalelu (Waena Dr), Kealakaa St, University Dr, Hina Lani Dr Widening, Shore Dr, Kahului-Keauhou Parkway (Alii Hwy), Lako St Extension, Saddle Rd Replacement, Saddle Rd Extension, Paniolo Rd Extension, Puna Mid -Level Rd, Mamalahoa Hwy-Kawaihae Rd Connector Project, etc. The 1998 Hawai'i Long Range Land Transportation Plan concluded that over $1.3 billion (in 1998 dollars) would have to be invested in County and State roads in the next 15 years. Nationally, highway and street construction is about 50 percent more expensive now and is increasing rapidly due to the rising price of oil. So, the price tag for the roads we need is at least $2 billion. At the current rate of Federal grant funding (80% of the average of $60 million expended per year under the State Transportation Improvement Program or STIP), it would take 33 years to construct the needed major roads. If half the STIP-funded projects are maintenance and safety project (as is the case now), it would take 66 years to build the roads we need. Are we "whistling past the graveyard" of our declining quality of life, or not? As you have stated many times, current funding sources (without impact fees) will support the construction of only three or four major road projects in Hawai'i County during the next 15 years. The widening of Kuakini Hwy is one of those projects. Which other 2 or 3 major road projects does the public believe will be needed in the next 15 years? Chris Yuen, Planning Director September 18, 2006 Page four The County has the money to pay the impact fees for affordable housing With no effective impact fee system in place, every time the County permits a big box store to be built, it obligates the County taxpayers to construct $5,000,000 in new State and County road capacity that is being used up by traffic that is generated by the new store. That cost is over and above expected revenue from the gas tax and Federal and State grants. Where does that money come from? From County taxpayers, of course. Directly from property owners and indirectly from the rent that renters pay their landlords. If an impact fee system were in place and the current system of corporate welfare were stopped, there would be plenty of money for the County to pay impact fees for those who would qualify for the affordable housing deferral. The County cannot fund all our infrastructure needs simply by selling general obligation bonds Under State law, Hawai'i County has a debt limit of 15 percent of the assessed valuation of all of the real property in the county, or about $2.2 billion. The most recent annual report indicated that the County has an outstanding debt of about $0.2 billion. It currently expends about $19 million per year servicing that debt, which is about 7 percent of its total revenues of $265 million and about 15 percent of its real property tax revenues of $131 million. At the current repayment rate, debt service on another $2 billion in debt would cost another $190 million per year, which could be paid by increasing current real property tax rates by 145 percent (by 2.45 times). How much more debt service do we want to take on? How would the taxpayers like it if their real property tax bills doubled? How about tripled? Why not use impact fees for the costs they can legally cover? Impact fees can be used to pay for capital improvements outright and to pay debt service on general obligation bonds that fund increases in infrastructure capacity, thereby avoiding an increase (or allowing a reduction) in real property tax rates. At present, Hawai'i County charge impact fees, but only for water The Hawai'i County Water Department, a semi -autonomous agency of the County government, charges a "water facilities fee" of $1,190 for the first dwelling unit (or water demand equivalent) and $5,500 for each additional dwelling unit to be connected to the County water system. The water facilities fee is effectively an impact fee. It is charged to all new users of the County water system. Also, since the early 1900's, Hawai'i County has imposed "fair share contributions" on applicants for new residential and hotel development. The charge is about $10,000 per single family dwelling unit, about $6,400 per multi -family unit and about $11,000 per hotel unit. The fees are imposed as a condition of zoning and are collected at the time of final subdivision or final plan approval (not also at the time a building permit is issued, which is the loophole in the system). Because most of the land subject to these contributions has not been subdivided, only about $19 million has been collected over the last ten years. Moreover, no fair share contributions are collected from the developers of retail/commercial developments, offices (the offices where lobbyists work and Chris Yuen, Planning Director September 18, 2006 Page five other offices), industrial developments, warehouse developments, etc. Not collecting contributions from the developers of these other types of development is unfair to the developers who do have to pay, rendering the constitutionality of this program questionable. Note that the "fair share contributions" are higher than the proposed impact fees. Developers pay impact fees, not home buyers Based on independent research in many communities the following is true: "In the short-term, impact fees may cause a slight increase in housing costs if the local real estate market allows the builder to shift the cost forward to the buyer. However, in the long-term, it is more than likely that the cost will be shifted backwards to landowners in the form of lower prices that may be bid for undeveloped land" That makes sense when you consider that a developer is producing a product at as high a price as the market will bear. The developer cannot "tack on" an impact fee to the highest price his buyers will pay. Over time, impact fees are actually "paid" by land owners who accept a lower price for their land, because they cannot charge more than the market will bear for their "product" (raw land) either. The perfect time to implement an impact fee system is when house prices are softening. The perfect time is now! In a recent situation in another state in which some impact fees had to be refunded (due to the lack of clear authority in State law allowing counties to enact impact fee ordinances), the court had to decide who should get the refund checks. Here is what Wendell Bullard, Head, Durham Citizens for Responsible Government said: "Everyone had to contribute to that $2,000 in some shape, form or fashion. I would agree that the [home] buyer would have some entitlement to at least part of that impact fee." Here is what Hank Fordham, attorney for the developer/builders said: "Not so. Builders who would tack an extra $2,000 onto the price of their homes would put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. The idea that they can pass through the costs is false. It defies the fundamental laws of economics." Raleigh News & Observer, 14 July 2006. When short-sighted opponents of impact fees are attempting to prevent an impact fee ordinance from being adopted, they argue that the homebuyer pays the fee. When they are arguing about who should receive a refund, they argue that the developers paid the fee. A similar situation occurred recently in another community (again, in the absence of State enabling legislation) and the same arguments were made by the developers when a partial refund was ordered. Hawai'i State law allows impact fees, so such cases will not occur here, but they do make it clear who really pays impact fees. Fact fees will not solve all our infrastructure shortfall problems An impact fee program cannot produce enough income to solve all our infrastructure problems. Under the law, impact fees cannot be used to improve the County -wide level of service of our public facilities systems. New development cannot be required to support a higher average level of service Chris Yuen, Planning Director September 17, 2006 Page six than existing taxpayers are enjoying. Nor can impact fees be used for maintenance of public facilities. The proposed impact fee system could potentially produce about $46 million annually, which is not a lot of money in an expensive place to build infrastructure, like Hawai'i. For example, at proposed impact fee levels, on average, each year, road impact fees could fund construction of about two miles of two-lane road (or 10 miles if the fees were used as the local match for a Federal 80 percent highway grant); park impact fees could fund about five boat ramps, or two 25 acre regional parks with two baseball fields, a pavilion and a restroom; fire/emergency medical service impact fees could fund about one fire station with two fire engines and one tanker; and police impact fees could fund about one police substation. Solid waste impact fees could fund about one transfer station every two years; and wastewater impact fees could about fund one wastewater treatment plant every three years to replace large cesspools. The oronosed impact fees are riaorously sunnort by the consultant's findings Careful review by independent, outside, knowledgeable, local people has revealed that the proposed impact fees meet the two criteria for legality: (1) there is a rational relationship between the fees and the impacts of development and (2) the amount of the fees in roughly proportional to the cost of providing infrastructure to accommodate the new development. In fact, the fees are "conservative" in that their levels are not anywhere near as high as they could be, particularly for roads and parks. For example, the proposed road impact fees do not call for new development to pay for the local cost of the capacity that development will consume in the State major road system. Thus, while it costs Hawai'i County taxpayers over $21,000 to replace the capacity in our island's State and County major road system that is consumed by the traffic generated by each new single family dwelling, the proposed impact fee amount will recover only about $4,800, an amount that would pay for replacing capacity in only major County roads. Similarly, it costs Hawai'i County taxpayers about $5,000,000 to replace the capacity in our island's State and County major road system that is consumed by the traffic generated by each new 140,000 square foot Wal-Mart or Costco. Under the proposed system, only about $1,100,000 would be charged to a Wal-Mart or Costco for replacing capacity in just major County roads. By not charging for capacity consumed in State major roads, both types of development are given a proportionally equal reduction in impact fees. If we give ordinary housing developers a break, Wal-Mart and Costco shareholders get a break, too. Thanks again for this opportunity to comment. If I can help in any way in implementation of an impact fee system for the County of Hawai'i, please let me know. Yours very truly, /36� / vt Robert M. (Bob) Hunter, Ph.D. Licensed Professional Engineer HAWAII ISLAND COMMUNIMIIIEVELOPMENT CORPORATIO►- 100 PAUAHI STREET, WtTE 204 • HIN 41AWAII 96720 September 18, 2006 Mr. Christopher Yuen Planning Director County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 Subject: Proposed Impact Fee Ordinance Dear Mr. Yuen: The Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation is concerned that the proposed impact fee ordinance will have a negative impact on the production of affordable housing. The proposal that the fees for affordable housing projects be paid out of other funds will divert a portion of government assistance that goes toward on-site affordable housing improvements. There is no assurance nor any proposal to increase government funding for affordable housing to make up the additional costs of paying the impact fees. Due to this, should the county decide to implement impact fees HICDC requests that affordable housing projects be exempt. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. Sincerely Yours, yx?&l41W Keith H. Kato Executive Director AN EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY -EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER - ADMINISTRATION: (808) 969-1158 FAX (808) 935-6916 Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment: Impact Fee Study prepared for County of Hawaii Planning Department prepared by DUNCAN ASSOCIATES in association avith HELBER HASTERT & FEE, PLANNERS September 2006 n Su 27 nr, n L!.j Helber Hastert & Fee P1 Planners, Inc. ':i w, , i September 27, 2006 25`I? Mr. Chris Yuen, Director County of Hawaii Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 Attn: Ms. Susan Gagorik Re: Infrastructure and Public Facility Needs Assessment (IPFNA) Contract C.000387 Dear Chris: On behalf of Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. and Duncan Associates, it is my pleasure to transmit twenty-five (25) copies of the Final Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment: Impact Fee Study and Draft Impact Fee Ordinance, and two (2) Compact Discs (CDs) which contain the electronic files for these documents. This submittal culminates a year's effort to establish a basis for the County of Hawai'i to adopt an ordinance creating an impact fee system to be applied against future development in the County that contributes to the construction of new infrastructure. The work is the result of tremendous cooperation between County agencies and the Consultant, and we are grateful to the many individuals in many agencies who contributed a significant amount of time and effort to support this project. We are also indebted to the residents of the County who participated in a series of public focus groups, workshops, presentations, and video conferences, which allowed the exchange of ideas that certainly improved the content of our work products. This public participation could not have been achieved without two amendments to our original contract, which facilitated the hiring of a community liaison (Alice Moon & Company) to help us "get the word out" about the project, and to provide a local connection to attract more participants to our public outreach effort. We are certain this public outreach was a crucial element for the project, and believe the money was well spent. The submittal also marks the completion of our work tasks, and we request that the contract be closed at this time. To facilitate processing of the contract, we have attached a tax clearance form and a final invoice. If any further services are needed from Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc., Duncan Associates, or Alice Moon & Company, it would require a separate contract. r ._. � Pacific Guardian( cnfir 7;; Rchop Snroct. Suitc 2590 . Honohdu. HaN,aii 46R11 Tel 403.545'02.5 . Fav NOS 545'050 . N�wm lhlxom e-mail: inro"nhhP.com 419845 Mr. Chris Yuen September 27, 2006 Page 2 In closing, I want to note that all of us on the consultant team have thoroughly enjoyed working with you, Mayor Kim, your staff, other County employees, and the residents of the Big Island who participated with us during the last year, and we look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, Scott Ezer Principal C: Jim Duncan Alice Moon I Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment: Impact Fee Study prepared for County of Hawaii Planning Department prepared by DUNCAN ASSOCIATES in association aitb HELBER HASTERT & FEE, PLANNERS September 2006 err W 0 w Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................... 1 Overview of the Project ...................................................... 1 Organization of the Report ................................................... 1 Policy Recommendations..................................................... 2 Impact Fee Summa 3 Impact Fee Revenue Projections............................................... Impact Fee Comparisons..................................................... 5 PART I: POLICY ANALYSIS...................................................... 7 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION............................................. 7 Current Fair Share Contributions........................................ 7 Background......................................................... 8 CHAPTER 2: LEGAL FRAMEWORK....................................... 11 General Principles................................................... 11 State Enabling Act................................................... 12 CHAPTER 3: POLICY ISSUES.............................................. 15 Treatment of Existing Lots............................................ 15 Affordable Housing 17 Progressive Residential Fees........................................... 17 Time of Collection ................................................... 17 Assessment and Benefit Districts....................................... 18 Pre-Ordinance Credits................................................ 19 Post-Ordinance Reimbursements....................................... 20 Phase-In Period..................................................... 20 Maximum Impact Fees............................................... 21 CHAPTER 4: AGENCY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ...................... 23 Overview.......................................................... 23 CHAPTER 5: LESSONS LEARNED......................................... 27 CHAPTER 6: NEXT STEPS/IMPLEMENTATION ............................ 29 Action Items If Impact Fees Not Adopted ............................... 29 Action Items if Impact Fees Adopted................................... 29 PART 11: IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS.......................................... 31 CHAPTER 7: ROADS..................................................... 31 Assessment and Benefit Districts....................................... 31 Service Unit........................................................ 32 Major Roadway System ............................................... 32 Methodology....................................................... 34 Travel Demand..................................................... 36 Roadway Capacity................................................... 41 Cost per Service Unit................................................. 43 Net Cost per Service Unit............................................. 44 Maximum Fee Schedule.............................................. 48 Capital Improvement Plan............................................ 49 CHAPTER 8: PARKS AND RECREATION.................................. 51 Assessment and Benefit Districts....................................... 52 . Service Unit ..................................................... 52 Cost Per Service Unitt 53 Net Cost Per Service Unit............................................. 56 Maximum Fee Schedule.............................................. 60 Capital Improvement Plan ............................................ 60 CHAPTER 9: FIRE/EMS.................................................. 63 Assessment and Benefit Districts ....................................... 64 Service Unit ........................................................ 64 Cost per Service Unit ................................................. 64 Net Cost per Service Unit ............................................. 67 Maximum Fee Schedule .............................................. 70 Capital Improvement Plan ............................................ 71 CHAPTER 10: POLICE .................................................... 73 Assessment and Benefit Districts ....................................... 73 Service Unit ........................................................ 74 Cost per Service Unit ................................................. 74 Net Cost per Service Unit ............................................. 75 Maximum Fee Schedule .............................................. 79 Capital Improvement Plan ............................................ 79 CHAPTER 11: SOLID WASTE .............................................. 81 Assessment and Benefit Districts ....................................... 82 Service Unit ........................................................ 82 Cost Per Service Unit ................................................ 83 Net Cost per Service Unit ............................................. 85 Maximum Fee Schedule .............................................. 88 Capital Improvement Plan ............................................ 88 CHAPTER 12: WASTEWATER ............................................. 91 Assessment and Benefit Districts ....................................... 92 Service Unit ........................................................ 93 Wastewater System Capacity ........................................... 94 Cost Per Service Unit ................................................ 95 Net Cost per Service Unit ............................................. 96 Maximum Fee Schedule .............................................. 98 Capital Improvement Plan ............................................ 99 PART III: APPENDICES........................................................ 101 APPENDIX A: ROAD INVENTORY ....................................... 101 APPENDIX B: GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT ............................ 107 APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA .................................... 109 APPENDIX D: FUNCTIONAL POPULATION .............................. 113 APPENDIX E: EXISTING PARK FACILITY INVENTORY ................... 117 APPENDIX F: WASTEWATER FACILITY INVENTORY ..................... 123 APPENDIX G: STATE IMPACT FEE LAW ................................. 127 APPENDIX H: STATE ACT 197 ........................................... 133 APPENDIX 1: NOVEMBER FOCUS GROUPS .............................. 135 APPENDIX J: JANUARY VIDEO CONFERENCE ........................... 137 APPENDIX K: MARCH WORKSHOPS SUMMARY .......................... 147 APPENDIX L: AUGUST WORKSHOPS SUMMARY ......................... 165 APPENDIX M: PARTICIPANTS ........................................... 171 APPENDIX N: IMPACT FEE GLOSSARY .................................. 179 APPENDIX O: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ........................ 181 Prepared by Duncan Associates 13276 Research Boulevard, Suite 208, Austin, TX 78750 (512) 258-7347 x204, clancy@duncanplan.com, www.impactfees.com List of Tables and Figures Table 1: POTENTIAL IMPACT FEE SUMMARY...................................... 4 Table 2: POTENTIAL ANNUAL IMPACT FEE REVENUE ...............................5 rye Table 3: POTENTIAL REVENUE VERSUS PLANNED EXPENDITURES ....................5 Table 4: COMPARATIVE IMPACT FEE PER SINGLE -FAMILY UNIT ...................... 6 Table 5: HYPOTHETICAL FAIR SHARE REVENUE, 2000-2005 .......................... 8 Table 6: COUNTY POPULATION GROWTH BY DISTRICT, 1990-2000 .................... 9 Table 7: HAWAI'I COUNTY POPULATION AND VISITORS ............................ 10 Table 8: RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 2000-2006 ............ 10 Table 9: OWNERSHIP OF VACANT RESIDENTIAL LOTS ............................. 16 Table 10: ROAD IMPROVEMENT NEEDS..........................................31 Table 11: SINGLE -FAMILY TRIPS BY BEDROOMS...................................36 Table 12: SINGLE -FAMILY TRIPS BY SQUARE FOOTAGE .............................37 Table 13: ESTIMATED ACTUAL VEHICLE-MILES OF TRAVEL .......................... 38 Table 14: TOTAL DAILY TRIPS................................................... 39 Table 15: AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH...............................................39 Table 16: AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH BY TRIP PURPOSE ............................... 40 Table 17: TRAVEL DEMAND SCHEDULE........................................... 41 Table 18: DAILY VEHICLE CAPACITIES............................................42 Table 19: EXISTING SYSTEM-WIDE CAPACITY/DEMAND RATIO ....................... 42 Table 20: RECENT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS........................................ 43 Table 21: ROAD COST PER SERVICE UNIT.........................................44 Table 22: PLANNED ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDING, 2006-2008 ...................... 45 Table 23: STATE AND FEDERAL ROAD FUNDING CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT ............ 45 Table 24: ROAD DEBT CREDIT................................................... 46 Table 25: ROAD GENERAL FUND HISTORICAL CAPACITY EXPENDITURES .............. 47 Table 26: ROAD PROPERTY TAX CREDIT.......................................... 47 Table 27: ROAD NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT................................... ROAD NET COST SCHEDULE • • 48 Table 28: Table 29: ...........................................49 ROAD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............................... 50 Table 30: PARK EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT MULTIPLIERS ......................... 53 Table 31: EXISTING PARK SERVICE UNITS ......................................... 53 Table 32: PARK LAND REPLACEMENT COST....................................... 54 Table 33: STANDARD PARK FACILITY REPLACEMENT COSTS ........................ 55 Table 34: SPECIAL PARK STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES ............................. 55 Table 35: PARK COST PER SERVICE UNIT......................................... 56 Table 36: PARK DEBT CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT................................... 56 Table 37: DIRECT PARK GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, 2001-2005 .................. 57 Table 38: TOTAL PARK GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, 2001-2005 ................... 57 Table 39: PARK PROPERTY TAX CREDIT.......................................... 58 Table 40: PARK GRANT FUNDING, 2000-2005...................................... 58 Table 41: PARK GRANT FUNDING CREDIT......................................... 59 Table 42: PARK NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT..................................... 59 Table 43: PARK NET COST SCHEDULE............................................ 60 Table 44: PARK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ................................ 61 Table 45: FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION COST.................................... 65 Table 46: EXISTING FIRE/EMS FACILITY COSTS.................................... 65 Table 47: EXISTING FIRE/EMS VEHICLE COST...................................... 66 Table 48: EXISTING FIRE/EMS EQUIPMENT COST.................................. 66 Table 49: FIRE/EMS COST PER SERVICE UNIT...................................... 67 Table 50: FIRE/EMS DEBT CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT ............................... 67 Table 51: FIRE/EMS GENERAL FUND CAPACITY EXPENDITURES, 2001-2005 ............ 68 Table 52: FIRE/EMS PROPERTY TAX CREDIT....................................... 68 E' Table 53: FIRE/EMS CAPITAL EQUIPMENT GRANTS. 2001 to 2005 ..................... 69 `r Table 54: FIRE/EMS GRANT FUNDING CREDIT .. • • 69 Table 55: FIRE/EMS NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT.................................. 70 Table 56: FIRE/EMS NET COST SCHEDULE........................................ 70 Table 57: FIRE/EMS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............................ 71 Table 58: EXISTING POLICE FACILITY REPLACEMENT COSTS ........................ 74 Table 59: POLICE VEHICLE AND MAJOR CAPITAL EQUIPMENT COST .................. 75 Table 60: POLICE COST PER SERVICE UNIT........................................ 75 Table 61: POLICE GRANT FUNDING, 2000 to 2005................................... 76 Table 62: POLICE GRANT FUNDING CREDIT....................................... 76 Table 63: POLICE DEBT CREDIT.................................................. 77 Table 64: POLICE GENERAL FUND CAPACITY EXPENDITURES, 2001-2005 .............. 77 Table 65: POLICE PAST PROPERTY TAX CREDIT.................................... 78 Table 66: POLICE NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT.................................... 78 Table 67: POLICE NET COST SCHEDULE.......................................... 79 Table 68: POLICE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .............................. 80 Table 69: EXISTING SOLID WASTE SERVICE UNITS ................................. 83 Table 70: SOLID WASTE TRANSFER STATION COST................................ 83 Table 71: SOLID WASTE LANDFILL COST......................................... 84 Table 72: SOLID WASTE EQUIPMENT COST....................................... 84 Table 73: SOLID WASTE COST PER SERVICE UNIT.................................. 85 Table 74: SOLID WASTE OUTSTANDING DEBT ALLOCATION ......................... 85 Table 75: SOLID WASTE DEBT CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT ........................... 86 Table 76: SOLID WASTE GENERAL FUND CAPACITY EXPENDITURES, 2001-2005 ........ 86 Table 77: SOLID WASTE PAST PROPERTY TAX CREDIT .............................. 86 Table 78: SOLID WASTE GRANT FUNDING, 2000 to 2005 ............................. 87 Table 79: SOLID WASTE GRANT FUNDING CREDIT................................. 87 Table 80: SOLID WASTE NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT .............................. 88 Table 81: SOLID WASTE NET COST SCHEDULE.................................... 88 Table 82: SOLID WASTE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................ 89 Table 83: METER EQUIVALENCY FACTORS........................................ 93 Table 84: WASTEWATER SERVICE UNIT MULTIPLIERS .............................. 94 Table 85: WASTEWATER SYSTEM CAPACITY...................................... 94 Table 86: WASTEWATER FACILITY REPLACEMENT COST ............................ 95 Table 87: WASTEWATER COST PER SERVICE UNIT................................. 96 Table 88: WASTEWATER FACILITY DEBT PER SERVICE UNIT ......................... 96 Table 89: WASTEWATER GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, 2001-2005 ................. 97 Table 90: WASTEWATER PAST PROPERTY TAX CREDIT ............................. 97 Table 91: WASTEWATER NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT ............................. 97 Table 92: WASTEWATER NET COST SCHEDULE.................................... 98 Table 93: WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................ 99 Table 94: EXISTING MAJOR ROAD INVENTORY................................... 101 Table 95: ORIGINAL GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT BY DEPARTMENT ................. 107 Table 96: ALLOCATION OF GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT BY DEPARTMENT ............ 108 Table 97: OUTSTANDING GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT BY DEPARTMENT ............. 108 Table 98: EXISTING DWELLING UNITS BY HOUSING TYPE .......................... 109 Table 99: AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY HOUSING TYPE, 2000 ..................... 109 Table 100: AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY BEDROOMS ............................. 110 Table 101: SINGLE -FAMILY HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY SQUARE FEET ...................... 111 Table 102: NONRESIDENTIAL LAND USE, 2005..................................... 111 Table 103: RESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS ............................ 113 Table 104: NONRESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS ........................ 114 Table 105: TOTAL EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS .................................. 115 Table 106: EXISTING PARK FACILITY INVENTORY.................................. 117 Table 107: NON-STANDARDIZED PARK FACILITY INVENTORY ........................ 121 Table 108: WASTEWATER FACILITIES INVENTORY................................. 123 Figure 1: JUDICIAL DISTRICTS................................................... 9 Figure 2: PROPOSED BENEFIT DISTRICTS......................................... 18 Figure 3: MAJOR ROADWAY SYSTEM ............................................ 33 w� Figure 4: ROAD IMPACT FEE FORMULA.......................................... 35 Figure 5: DAILY TRIPS BY UNIT SIZE ............................................. 37 Figure 6: EXISTING COUNTY PARKS............................................. 51 Figure 7: FIRE STATION LOCATIONS.............................................63 Figure 8: POLICE STATION LOCATIONS..........................................73 Figure 9: LANDFILL/TRANSFER STATION LOCATIONS .............................. 81 Figure 10: WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES.................................. 91 Figure 11: SEWER SERVICE AREAS............................................... 92 this page intentionally left blank PIONFE-XECU-TIVE SUMMARY This study calculates the maximum impact fees that the County of Hawaii could charge based on the existing levels of service for roads, park and recreation facilities, fire/emergency medical service (EMS) equipment and facilities, police equipment and facilities, residential solid waste facilities and equipment and wastewater facilities. Overview of the Project The County of Hawaii Planning Department contracted with Helber Hastert and Fee to conduct an Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment (IPFNA) study and draft ordinance. Helber Hastert & Fee subcontracted with Duncan Associates, impact fee experts of Austin, Texas, and Alice Moon and Co., a community and public relations firm of Hilo, Hawaii to achieve the project outcomes. Funding was provided by the Hawaii County Council. The Infrastructure and Public Facility Needs Assessment project was divided into two phases. The first phase focused on policy analysis, and the second phase focused on implementation. The first phase of this project was a policy analysis that culminated in the preparation of an Ordinance IssuesMexarandrrm (October 2005) and a PoligAmlysisMemorandum Qanuary 2006). The first phase also included an extensive public participation process, including November 2005 focus groups in Hilo and Kona, a January 2006 video conference with participants in Kona, Hilo and Honolulu, and March 2006 workshops in Hilo and Kona. This report represents one of two major work products of the second, implementation phase of the project. This report provides the detailed analysis and calculations needed to support the adoption of an impact fee ordinance. It also summarizes the major policy recommendations resulting from the first phase. The other major work product of this phase is a draft ordinance, which is provided separately. Organization of the Report This Executive Summary begins the report. It summarizes the policy recommendations for both this study and the ordinance, the maximum impact fees that could be adopted by the County Council, the revenue that could be generated if the fees are adopted at the full amount, and a comparison of impact fee amounts calculated for Hawaii County with the current fair share assessments and average fees charged by jurisdictions on the mainland. The remainder of the report is divided into three parts. Part I: Policy Analysis includes five chapters: Introduction, Legal Framework, Policy Issues, Agency and Public Participation and Next Steps/Implementation. Part II: Impact Fee Calculations consists of six chapters devoted to Roads, Parks, Fixe/EMS, Police, Solid Waste and Wastewater facilities. Part III: Appendices contains additional detail on the legal framework, public participation and impact fee calculations, as well as a glossary of terms and answers to frequently asked questions about impact fees. Part I: Policy Analysis begins with Chapter 1: Introduction. It summarizes the current fair share assessment system that would be replaced by impact fees. This chapter also describes growth trends on the Big Island. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 1 Chapter 2: Legal Framework follows. This chapter describes the specific requirements of the State impact fee enabling act. It also explains the fundamental principles that govern impact fees. These principles guide the recommendations to base the impact fees on the existing levels of service, and to reduce the fees to account for other revenues that will be generated by new development and used to provide the same level of service that the fees are intended to provide. Chapter 3: Policy Issues summarizes the public participation process and the recommendations on major issues that came out of the fust phase of the project. The policy issues deal primarily with how to structure the impact fee ordinance, rather than with the impact fee study that is the major focus of this report. Chapter 4: Agency and Public Participation describes the participation of County and State agency staff in providing data and input and the outreach efforts used to engage the public. Chapter 5: Lessons Learned describes some of the lessons teamed during the agency and public sessions. Chapter 6: Next Steps/Implementation outlines action items if impact fees are not adopted, and other action items if impact fees are adopted. Part II: Impact Fee Calculations contains the remaining chapters of the report, which calculate the net cost to accommodate new development at the existing level of service for each of the following facility types: Chapter 7: Roads, Chapter 8: Parks and Recreation, Chapter 9: Fire/EMS, Chapter 10: Police, Chapter 11: Solid Waste and Chapter 12: Wastewater. ^+ 7 Policy Recommendations Based on the analysis conducted for Phase I, the County should consider replacing its fair share assessments with a true impact fee system that follows the requirements of the State impact fee enabling act. An impact fee collected from all new development would be more legally defensible, more equitable and generate significantly more revenue than the current "fair share" system. This additional revenue would translate into capital improvements that would benefit all fee payers. Treatment of Existing Lots. The concern about how to treat existing lots is rooted in a concern about affordable housing. It is recommend that affordable housing be addressed separately, with no special treatment of existing lots. 2. Affordable Housing. It is important to mitigate the effects of impact fees on lower-income residents. Therefore, impact fees for affordable housing projects (e.g., Habitat for Humanity or self-help housing) should be paid by the County from other funding sources. To promote housing affordability more generally, the County could provide grants or loans to eligible homebuyers at closing to cover the amount of the impact fees paid on the home. 3. Progressive Residential Fees. This report presents the option of progressive single-family fees that vary by the size of the dwelling as one way to address the affordability issue. However, this option will not be available if the County decides to collect fees for new single-family lots at the time of subdivision approval, since the size of the unit will not be known at that time. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 2 4. Time of Collection. To promote the provision of infrastructure concurrent with the impact of development, the County could establish a two-tier system and collect impact fees from new single-family residential development at the time of final subdivision approval. Other types of development (commercial, industrial), including existing lots subdivided prior to the effective date of the impact fee ordinance, would pay impact fees at the time the building permit is issued. S. Assessment and Benefit Districts. Itis recommended that all of the proposed impact fees be calculated county -wide, and that the county be divided into four benefit districts for most of the proposed impact fees. To facilitate projects of regional benefit, it is recommended that the County allow up to 20 percent of the impact fees (40 percent for solid waste fees) collected in any district to be used for projects located outside the district, provided that significant benefit will be provided to new development in the district in which the fees were collected. 6. Pte -Ordinance Credits. If developers have paid fair share assessments or made in-kind contributions for projects that have not been completed, impact fees should be reduced or eliminated for any remaining development in those projects. 7. Post -Ordinance Reimbursements. If developers are required, or agree, to dedicate land or make eligible improvements for impact fee facilities after the effective date of the ordinance, they should be reimbursed from impact fees for the value of those improvements. 8. Phase-in Period. The phase-in period provides the public with notice that impact fees are forthcoming. It also gives the County administration time to develop administrative procedures to implement the ordinance. The recommended effective date of the impact fee ordinance is �., one year after the adoption date. During the one-year phase-in period, the fair share assessments would continue to be in effect. 9. Maximum Fees. The County can charge any percentage of the maximum fees calculated in this report, up to 100 percent, as long as the same percentage is applied to all land use categories. The percentage of the maximum fees charged could vary by benefit district. With the exception of solid waste fees, which have a large county -wide component (the landfill), individual fees could be charged in some districts but not others. Impact Fee Summary The maximum potential fees calculated in this report for all six facilities and all land use types are presented in Table 1. All fees represent the maximum impact fee calculated based on the existing county -wide level of service and should be assessed through a uniform county -wide fee. The maximum road fee shown in this table does not include State roads—the County has the option to charge a maximum fee with State roads included. If State road costs are included, the road fees would be much higher. The County can charge less than 100 percent of the full amount that could be charged, as long as the fees are reduced proportionately for all land use types. For new single-family homes, the County has the option of charging a flat rate for all single-family homes, or charging fees that vary between six dwelling unit size categories based on living area. HAWAO COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 3 4,000 sq. ft or more Table 1 $5,675 $8,404 $703 $841 POTENTIAL IMPACT FEE SUMMARY Single -Family (flat rate) Dwelling $4,758 $6,566 $549 Unit of $242 $3,785 Fire/ Solid Waste - $3,338 Land Use Type Measurement Roacls� Parks EMS Police Waste water** Total Less than 1,000 sq. ft. Dwelling $4,190 $6,369 $533 $637 $235 $3,672 $15,63 1,000 -1,499 sq. ft. Dwelling $4,758 $6,763 $566 $677 $250 $3,899 $16,91 1,500 - 1,999 sq. ft. Dwelling $4,979 $7,026 $582 $696 $257 $4,050 $17,59 2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,232 $7,420 $621 $742 $274 $4,277 $18,56 3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,481 $7,879 $659 $788 $291 $4,542 $19,6 4,000 sq. ft or more Dwelling $5,675 $8,404 $703 $841 $310 $4,845 $20,77 Single -Family (flat rate) Dwelling $4,758 $6,566 $549 $657 $242 $3,785 $16,55 Multi -Family Dwelling $3,338 $5,187 $429 $512 $0 $2,990 $12,45 Hotel/Motel Room $4,767 $3,086 $258 $309 $0 $1,779 $10,19 Retail/Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $8,114 $0 $830 $992 $0 $606 $10,54 Office 1,000 sq, ft. $6,187 $0 $467 $556 $0 $606 $7,81 Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. $3,909 $0 $291 $348 $0 $606 $5,15 Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $2,287 $0 $187 $223 $0 $606 $3,30 Church/Synagogue 1,000 sq. ft. $3,121 $0 $467 $558 $0 $606 $4,75 Elem./Sec. School 1,000 sq. ft. $1,134 $0 $467 $558 $0 $606 $2,76 Hospital 1,000 sq. ft. $9,875 $0 $467 $558 $0 $606 $11,50 .. , Nursing Home 1,000 sq. ft. $2,780 $0 $467 $558 $0 $606 $4,41 Other Institutional 1,000 sq. ft. $6,187 $0 $467 $558 $0 $606 $7,81 County roads only; potential fee if State roads are included would be much higher. " Wastewater fees will only be assessed for land uses served by County wastewater facilities. Source. Potential fees for roads, parks, fire/EMS, police, solid waste and wastewater facilities from Tables 28, 43, 56, 67, 81 and 92; wastewater fees for nonresidential uses are estimates based on assumed 3' meter for 100,000 square foot building. Impact Fee Revenue Projections If adopted at the maximum levels calculated in this report, it is estimated thatimpact fees could generate approximately $45.6 million annually, as shown in Table 2. To put this in perspective, the road impact fee revenue would allow the County to construct about 1.7 miles of two-lane road per year. The park fees would fund the acquisition and development of 54 acres of new parks annually. The fixe/EMS fees would allow the construction of a fire station with two fire engines and one tanker each year. The police fees would fund the construction of one police substation annually. The solid waste fees would fiord the construction of about one transfer station every two years. The wastewater fees would fund the construction of a new treatment plant every three years to replace cesspools. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 4 Table 2 POTENTIAL ANNUAL IMPACT FEE REVENUE .. Unit of Measurement Annual Growth Dwelling 1,881 Dwelling 566 1000 sf 361 1000 sf 256 1000 sf 28 $12,015,800 Roads* $8,947,487 $1,889,268 $2927,825 $1,584,471 $110,917 $15,459,96 Parks $12,348,702 $2,936,096 $0 $0 $0 $15,284,79 Fire/EMS $1,032,506 $242,835 $299509 $1,585,727 $8,256 $3,168,83 Police $1,235,623 $289,817 $357967 $142,911 $9,874 $2,036,191 Solid Waste $455,742 $0 $0 $0 $0 $455,742 Wastewater $7.118.465 $1,692,487 $218,544 $155,109 $17,183 $9,201,78 County roads only; potential revenue if State roads are included would be much higher. Source: Projected annual growth based on 2000 to 2005 building permit data; potential facility fees from Table 1. Another way to put the potential revenues in perspective is to compare them to the amounts currently programmed in the County's capital improvements program for growth -related improvements. As shown below, the potential revenue at the maximum fee levels calculated in this report would exceed planned capacity expenditures programmed in the current 5 -year capital improvements program for parks, fire/EMS and wastewater. Other projects would need to be identified to be funded with the impact fees for these facilities. Potential revenue from road and solid waste impact fees, on the other hand, would fund only a small fraction of planned projects. Table 3 POTENTIAL REVENUE VERSUS F Roads* $15,460,000 $87,740,000 18% Parks $15,285,000 $12,015,800 127% Fire/EMS $3,169,000 $4,742,000 67% Police $2,036,000 $2,752,000 74% Solid Waste $456,000 $3,275,000 14% Total $45,608,000 $115,330,800 40% * County roads only; potential revenue if State roads are included is much higher. Source: Potential revenue from Table 2; annual expenditures is one-fifth of eligible CIP funding from the table at the end of each chapter in Part II.. Impact Fee Comparisons The maximum impact fees calculated in this report are compared with Hawaii County's existing fair share assessments and California and national average impact fees in Table 4. The potential single- family impact fee is higher than the current fair share assessments for all facilities. The potential road impact fees for roads (County roads only) are very similar to the current fair share assessments and the California average (although the road fee would fat exceed these if it included State road costs). The HAWAII COUNTYIINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 5 potential park fees are considerably higher than the current fair share assessments, and somewhat higher than the California average. The other impact fees are on par with current fair share assessments and what the average jurisdiction on the mainland charges for the same facilities. Table 4 Roads* $4,768 $4,281 $4,210 $2,270 Parks $6,566 $4,818 $5,890 $2,055 Fire $549 $459 $633 $365 Police $657 $232 $861 $345 Solid Waste $242 $201 na $189 Total $12,772 $9,991 $11,594 $5,224 Wastewater $3,785 na $4,716 $2,587 * County roads only; maximum fee if State roads are included is much higher. Source: Maximum impact fee for single-family unit from Table 1; Hawaii County fair share assessments as of November 2005; California and national average fees from Duncan Associates survey, August 5, 2006 HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 6 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to calculate the maximum impact fees that Hawaii County can charge based on the existing levels of service for the Big Island's major road network, parks and recreation facilities, police, fixe/EMS, wastewater treatment and solid waste facilities. If adopted, impact fees would replace the County's current system of "fair share" assessment. This project has been divided into two phases. Phase I previously identified facilities for which it would be feasible to develop impact fees based on available data and other factors. This Phase II report presents detailed impact fee studies necessary to implement the policy decisions made in Phase I and develop an impact fee ordinance. Current Fair Share Contributions Since the early 1990s, the County of Hawaii has imposed "fair share" assessments on applicants for new residential (including agricultural lots zoned one acre or less in size) and hotel zoning. The fees, which are imposed as a condition of zoning approval, are collected prior to securing final subdivision approval for newly created lots or prior to obtaining final plan approval for multi -family or hotel development. The fees, which are adjusted annually for inflation based on the Honolulu Consumer Price Index (CPI), currently (as of November 2005) total approximately $9,991.20 per dwelling unit; $6,411.25 for multi -family; and $10,994.22 for resort, per rental unit. The assessments are collected for roads, parks, �r fire, police and solid waste facilities. The County's fair share assessments have never been adopted as an ordinance, although the County Council did pass a general authorization in 1992 for the collection of such fees as a condition of development approval in 1992 (Hawaii County Code §2-162). The fees are based on an impact fee study that was prepared by a consultant in 1990, but was never formally approved or adopted by the County.' The fees calculated in that report are adjusted annually based on the change in the Honolulu Consumer Price Index. Many of the zoning ordinances passed by the Hawaii County Council in recent years contain a provision requiring that in the event an impact fee ordinance is adopted, it will give credit for the fair share contributions. A typical provision reads as follows: "Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for imposition of exactions or assessment of impact fees, conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance.` While the fair share assessments are substantial, they have not generated much revenue. An analysis done in 2004 determined that over $74 million had been assessed on new approved rezonings in the ten years of the program, but only $3.6 million had been collected in cash and another $15.2 million had ' Ann Usagawa, Development Impact Fee Pricing Technical Repor4 August 1990 z Ordinance No. 05-74, adopted on May 18, 2005 HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 7 been provided by developers in the form of in-kind contributions in return for credits 3 This is because most of the land that has been subject to fair share assessments at the change of zone level has not yet been subdivided. If the fair share assessment amounts had been in the form of impact fees collected at time of building permit, they would have generated $103 million in cash and credits since January 2000, and if they had been assessed on nonresidential as well as residential development, they would have generated $170 million in less than six years, as shown in Table 5. Table 5 FAIR SHARE REVENUE, 2000-2005 Roads $44,176,556 $58,813,053 $102,989 Parks $50,038,557 $0 $50,038 Police $2,273,269 $2,743,975 $5,017 Fire $4,783,316 $3,618,026 $8,401 ITotal $103,374,344 $66,987,309 $170,361,6521 Source: Estimated revenue based on building permits issued from January 1, 2000 through August 31. 2005 and annual fair share rates based on "Fair Share Contributions -Adjustments for inflation using the Honolulu Consumer Price Ince-A." Impact fees would essentially replace the fair share contributions. Lots that had paid fair share contributions would get credit against the impact fees or be exempt from having to pay impact fees for the same type of facilities. Fair share contributions made at zoning but not yet collected at the time of the effective date of the impact fee ordinance (because the property had not yet been subdivided) would become void; instead of paying fair share contributions, the properties would pay impact fees. A major difference is that impact fees would be assessed on all new development, including nonresidential development and residential development in areas with existing zoning. Background The County of Hawaii encompasses the entire island of Hawaii (the "Big Island"). The land area of the county is approximately twice the combined land area of all the other islands of the State. Traditionally, agriculture has played an important role in the County's economy and much of the County's population growth and development was tied to the growth and employment needs of its agricultural economy. The island's population declined after World War II with the decreasing need for agricultural workers. Since the 1960s, however, tourism has emerged as the primary economic activity. In addition, the County has seen substantial population growth beyond what would be expected from economic opportunities in the County's primary industries; such population growth has mostlikelybeen due to in -migration of people drawn to the quality of life in the County. 3 Hawaii County Planning Department, Fair Share Contributions Annual Report 2004, May 21, 2004 HAWAI'1 COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 8 The County of Hawaii is currently the second most populous county in Hawaii. The 2000 U.S. Census recorded the County's population as 148,677. The County of Hawai`i's population growth has remained relatively constant over the last two decades, with a slight decline from an annual rate of 2.71 percent in the 1980s to 2.14 percent in the 1990s. According to population projections provided in the medium series projections in the Hawaii County General Plan, Hawaii County's population is expected to grow at about 1.9 percent a year over the next two decades. Under this growth assumption, the County's population is expected to be about 217,718 in 2020. As shown in Table 6, certain districts experienced much more rapid growth during the 1990s than the county as a whole. The bulk of the growth occurred in the districts of Puna, South Kohala and North Kona. The districts of North Kohala and Ka`u at opposite ends of the island also grew at a faster rate than the island average, but they started from a relatively small population base. Figure 1 JUDICIAL DISTRICTS In the 1950s and 1960s, the County allowed many subdivisions with minimal improvements, mostly in Puna and Ka`u, with a few in South Kona. Today, there are about 53,000 residential lots in Puna, of which about 40,000 are vacant. Ka`u has about 16,000 residential lots, of which about 13,000 are vacant (mostly in Hawaiian Ocean View Estates). Thirty-seven percent of the island's population increase in the 1990s occurred in Puna, almost entirely in these older subdivisions. CTable 6 Ml wTV oOP11I ATION GROWTH BY DISTRICT 1 -Puna 20,781 31,335 10,554 37.21% 4.19 2 -South Hilo 44,639 47,386 2,747 9.69% 0.60 3 -North Hilo 1,541 1,720 179 0.63% 1.10 4-Hamakua 5,545 6,108 563 1.99% 0.97 5 -North Kohala 4,291 6,038 1,747 6.16% 3.47 6 -South Kohala 9,140 13,131 3,991 14.07% 3.69 7 -North Kona 22,284 28,543 6,259 22.07% 2.51 8 -South Kona 7,658 8,589 931 3.28% 1.15 Source. County of Hawai'i Data Book. Section 1 <http://www.hawaiicounty.com/>. In addition to the development potential on zoned and subdivided lots, there is also significant development that can occur by subdivision of land under current zoning. According to County HAWAII COUNTYUNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 9 Planning Department staff, eight areas outside of major resorts could be subdivided to accommodate 11,000 dwelling units without additional rezoning.' In addition to the resident population, Hawaii County has a significant daily tourist population. Table 7 shows the resident population and visitor industry projections through 2020. Based on data from the Hawaii County General Plan, there were 1,265,700 visitors and 10,041 hotel rooms in the County in 2000. The average daily visitor census data illustrates the significance of tourism. The average daily number of visitors is projected to increase by 2.00 percent annually, from 21,831 in 2000 to 32,440 in 2020. Table 7 1985 105,900 8,040 7,511 1990 120,317 16,970 8,952 1995 137,290 18,650 9,575 2000 148,677 21,831 10,041 2005 159,908 24,103 10,513 2010 176,937 26,612 10,892 2015 195,965 29,382 11,200 Source: Hawaii County General Plan, Table 1-5: Average Daily Visitor Census, 1985 to 2000, from Hawaii County Data Book, Table 7.3, data from 2005-2020 derived used total visitor growth rate projected increase of 2% per year from Hawai'i County General Plan. Nonresidential growth appears to be at least as strong as residential construction, based on building permit data. Since the year 2000, the number of housing units has increased by about three percent annually, while nonresidential square footage has been increasing by almost seven percent annually. Table 8 Source: Residential data from 2000 U.S. Census and January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2005 building permit data; 2005 nonresidential square footage estimate from Hawaii County tax records (data as of January 1, 2005 assessment date for 2005 tax year); 2000-2005 nonresidential permit data from County of Hawaii for January 1, 2000 through August 31, 2005; 2000 nonresidential estimate is difference. 'The areas are Waikoloa Village, Bridge Ainalea, Kohala Ranch Project IV, former "Y.O." property, University Terrace, Wilder Road property, Parker Ranch 2020 Plan in Waimea, former Haseko property south of Kona Palisades, per Hawaii County Planning Department memorandum, March 9, 2005 HAWAVI COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 10 CHAPTER 2: LEGAL FRAMEWORK �+ Impact fees are one of the most direct ways for local governments to require new developments to pay a larger portion of the costs they impose on the community. In contrast to traditional "negotiated" developer exactions, impact fees are charges that are assessed on new development based on a standard formula and objective characteristics, such as the number of dwelling units constructed or vehicle trips generated. The fees are one-time, up -front charges. Essentially, impact fees require that each developer of a new residential or commercial project pay its pro -rata share of the cost of new infrastructure facilities required to serve that development. General Principles Since impact fees were pioneered in states that lacked specific enabling legislation, such fees have generally been legally defended as an exercise of local government's broad "police power" to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Over time, various state courts have developed guidelines for constitutionally valid impact fees, based on a "rational nexus" that must exist between the regulatory fee or exaction and the activity that is being regulated. The standards set by court cases generally require that an impact fee or other developer exaction meet a two-part test: 1) The need for new facilities must be created by new development (first prong of the dual rational nexus test); and 2) The expenditure of impact fee revenues must provide benefit to the fee -paying development (second prong of the dual rational nexus test). A Florida district court of appeals described the dual rational nexus test in 1983 as follows, and this language was quoted and followed by the Florida Supreme Court in its 1991 St. Jobns County decision:5 In order to satisfy these requirements, the localgovernment must demonstrate a reasonable connection, or rational nexus, between the need for additional capital facilities and the growth in population generated by the subdivision. In addition, tbegovernmentmustshow a reasonable connection, or rational nexus, between the expenditures of the funds collected and the benefits accruing to the subdivision. In order to satisfy this latter requirement, the ordinance must Specifically earmark the funds collected for use in acquiring capital facilities to benefit the new residents. In addition to the dual rational nexus test, impact fees may also need to meet Federal constitutional requirements for developer exactions. The most important recent legal development regarding development exactions is the 1994 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Dolan P. City of Tigard' In Dolan, the Supreme Court expanded upon the rational nexus test, adding to it a requirement that there be a "rough proportionality" between the impact of a proposed development and the burden of the exaction imposed on it. While this case involved an ad hoc land dedication requirement and may not apply to legislatively -adopted fees, impact fees are more likely to comply with this standard than other types of developer exactions. 5 Hollywood Inc. P. Broward County, 431 So. 2d 606, 611-12 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 440 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1983), quoted and followed in St. Johns County a Nortbeast Florida BuildersArt'n, 583 So. 2d 635, 637 (Fla, 1991) 1� Dolan P. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374,129 L. Ed. 2d 304,114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994) HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 11 State Enabling Act To date, 26 states, including Hawaii, have adopted impact fee enabling legislation. Like most other state enabling acts, Hawai`i's impact fee enabling act for counties reflects the constitutional standards enumerated above. Hawai`i's impact fee enabling act, adopted in 1992, authorizes counties to adopt impact fees for any "types of public facility capital improvements specifically identified in a county comprehensive plan ora facility needs assessment study." A copy of the enabling act is provided for reference in Appendix G. The only use of this authority to -date has been the adoption in 2002 of a road impact fee by the City and County of Honolulu for the Ewa region.' Counties in Hawaii are authorized by State law to enact impact fee ordinances, provided that they follow the requirements of Chapter 46, Part VIII of Hawaii Revised Statutes (Section 46-141 through 46-148). Tbis section provides a brief summary of those requirements most relevant to Hawaii County. Generally, developers prefer to pay impact fees as late in the development process as possible, and most state acts prohibit the collection of impact fees prior to the time of issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy. Hawai`i's act states in Section 46-146 that "Assessment of impact fees shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of a grading or building permit and shall be collected in full before or upon issuance of the permit." Hawaii County's Corporation Counsel has interpreted this language to mean that the County may assess and collect impact fees at the time of subdivision approval or building permit issuance. A fundamental principle of impact fees is that new development cannot be charged for a higher level of service than is provided to existing development. Section 46-142(b) states that an impact fee study "shall specify the service standards for each type of facility subject to an impact fee; provided that the standards shall apply equally to existing and new public facilities." If, for example, a County currently provides five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, it cannot base park impact fees for new development on a standard of ten acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, unless certain conditions are met. First, another source of funding other than park impact fees would have to be identified and committed to fund the capacity deficiency created by the higher level of service. Second, the park impact fees must generally be reduced to ensure that new development does not pay twice for the same level of service, once through impact fees and again through general taxes that are used to remedy the capacity deficiency for existing development. Section 46-143(d)(1) requires counties to consider the "means, other than impact fees, by which existing deficiencies will be eliminated within a reasonable period of time..." in formulating an impact fee. One way to avoid these kinds of complications is to base the impact fees on the existing level of service. A corollary principle is that new development should not have to pay twice for the same level of service. As noted above, if impact fees are based on a higher -than existing level of service, the fees should be reduced by a credit that accounts for the contribution of new development toward remedying the existing deficiencies. A similar situation arises when the existing level of service has not been fully paid for. Outstanding debt on existing facilities that are counted in the existing level of service will be retired, in part, by revenues generated from new development that will also pay impact fees to maintain the existing level of service. Consequently, impact fees should be reduced to account for future tax payments that will retire outstanding debt on existing facilities. The Hawaii enabling act addresses this issue in Section 46-143(d)(6), which provides that one of the seven factors that shall be considered in 7 Chapter 33A of the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu (the fee for a single-family unit is $1,836) HAWAYI COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 12 determining "a proportionate share of public facility capital improvement costs" is the "extent to which a developer required to pay impact fees over the next twenty years may reasonably be anticipated to ti... contribute to the cost of existing public facility capital improvements through user fees, debt service payments, or other payments, and any credits that may accrue to a development because of future payments ..." The State act implies that credit may also be due for other types of revenues besides those used to pay debt service on existing capital facilities. Section 46-143(d)(2) states that another factor that shall be considered is the "availability of other funding for public facility capital improvements, including but not limited to user charges, taxes, bonds, intergovernmental transfers, and special taxation or assessments..." Also, Section 46-141 defines "proportionate share" to mean "the portion of total public facility capital improvement costs that is reasonably attributable to a development, less: (1) Any credits for past or future payments, adjusted to presentvalue, forpublic facility capital improvement costs made or reasonably anticipated to be contributed by a developer in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, or other payments..." Aside from debt service payments, credit against impact fees may not be required for other types of funding that have historically been used for growth -related, capacity -expanding improvements, or which may even be committed to be spent in the future for such purposes. While new development may contribute toward such funding, so does existing development, and both existing and new development benefit from the higher level of service that the additional funding makes possible. To insist that historical capacity funding patterns must be continued after the adoption of impact fees, and that new development is entitled to a credit for its contribution to those funding sources, would be to argue that local governments cannot require "growth to pay for growth" unless they have always done so. Local y� funding that is committed to be used for capacity expansion in the future needs to be taken into account only in cases where there is no reasonable need for or benefit from higher levels of service than the existing level of service embodied in the impact fee calculations. As long as the fees are based on new development paying to maintain existing levels of service that have been paid for in full by existing development, and additional funding can reasonably be used to raise the level of service for existing and new development alike, no additional revenue credits are warranted. Nevertheless, credit will be provided in this study for dedicated revenue (e.g., motor fuel taxes earmarked for transportation improvements) and State and Federal grants. M Hawai`i's statute is one of only a handful of state enabling acts that require credit for past property tax payments. Section 46-143(d)(5) states that the "extent to which a developer required to pay impact fees has contributed in the previous five years to the cost of existing public facility capital improvements and received no reasonable benefit therefrom, and any credits that may be due to a development because of such contributions" shall be taken into consideration in the impact fee calculation. And the definition of"proportionate share" cited above makes clear that this refers not just to developer exactions, but also to past property tax payments. Prior to development, the owners of a vacant parcel of land paid property taxes that may have been used, in part, to construct capital facilities of the type for which impact fees are being assessed. Consequently, it will be necessary to reduce impact fees by the present value of property tax payments over the last five years that were used to construct existing capital facilities of the type for which the fees are being charged. HAWAPI COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 13 0 this page intentionally left blank HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 14 CHAPTER 3: POLICY ISSUES The first phase of this project was a policy analysis that culminated in the preparation of an Ordinance Issues Memorandum (October 2005) and a PolicyAnadysisMemorandum Qanuary 2006). The first phase also included an extensive public participation and education process, including: o November 2005 focus groups in Hilo and Kona (see summary in Appendix G), o January 2006 video conference with participants in Kona, Hilo and Honolulu (see summary in Appendix H), o and March 2006 workshops in Hilo and Kona (see summary in Appendix 1). A list of participants in these public meetings can be found in Appendix J. Based on the analysis conducted for Phase I, the County should consider replacing its fair share assessments with a true impact fee system that follows the requirements of the State impact fee enabling act. An impact fee collected from all new development would be more legally defensible, more equitable and generate significantly more revenue than the current "fair share" system. This additional revenue would translate into capital improvements that would benefit all fee payers. More specific recommendations are provided for detailed policy issues below. Treatment of Existing Lots A major issue in the development of an impact fee system for Hawaii County is how to treat existing lots of record. In most jurisdictions that have adopted impact fees throughout the United States, how to treat existing lots is a minor issue. Generally, the supply of such lots is limited, and if they are grandfathered or otherwise exempted from impact fees the overall effect on impact fee revenues is short-lived and relatively minor. However, this is not the case in Hawaii County. A recent analysis indicates that there are about 64,000 undeveloped residential lots in the county. This exceeds the total number of housing units on the island at the time of the 2000 census (62,674). Many of these lots are accessed via private substandard roads, have private water catchment systems, and are serviced with cesspools or septic tanks. Of the roughly 2,000 permits of single-family detached units issued by the County annually, it has been estimated that about one-third of these new homes are being built on lots that were created in the 1950s and 1960s. The perception exists that many of these lots are owned by local residents who intend to build a home for themselves in these older subdivisions. While this is undoubtedly true to some extent, it is far from the typical case. An analysis of property tax records indicates that only about 14 percent of existing vacant residential lots are owned solely by Big Island residents, and two-thirds are under the exclusive ownership of non -Big Island residents (see Table 9). The remaining 17 percent are owned by multiple owners with some Big Island resident participation, but it is likely that most of these lots are being held as an investment, rather than as a future home site. The investment motive probably holds for a good number of the Big Island owners as well. So the number owned by Big Island residents who plan to build a home on them is probably considerably less than 9,000 lots. To put that number in perspective, it represents less than five years of single-family building permit activity in Hawaii County at current development rates. HAWAII COUNTYUNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 15 Table 9 OWNERSHIP OF VACANT RESIDENTIAL LOTS Ownership # of Lots Percent, Big Island -Single Owner 9,123 14.20% Big Island -Multiple Owners 175 0.30% Mixed Big Island/Other Owners 10,747 16.70% Source: Hawaii County Real Property Tax Administrator, January 7, 2006 (data base excludes lots that are (1) over 20 acres, (2) already improved with $10,000 or more worth of yard or outbuilding improvements, or (3) commercial, industrial or resort hotel tax classifications or zoning, and all roadway, governmental and utility parcels. One option that was considered for this study was to allow any existing lot of record to be developed with one dwelling unit without paying an impact fee. Any additional dwelling units or any nonresidential development on the lot would be required to pay an impact fee. This approach has the appearance of even -handedness --after all, every existing lot is given the same development right. However, exempting one dwelling unit amounts to a 100 percent exemption for an existing single-family lot, but a negligible exemption for a 500 -acre parcel that will be subdivided and developed with 2,000 single-family homes. There are several alternatives for dealing with the large number of existing lots. Five options are outlined below. Option 1: Fee Waiver for First Dwelling. Allow any existing lot of record to be developed with one dwelling unit without paying an impact fee. Any additional dwelling units or any nonresidential development on the lot would be required to pay an impact fee. A concern here is that if the amount of development not paying the fee is large, the impact fees will not be sufficient to provide the level of service that the fees are intended to provide. Option 2: County Grant for First Dwelling. Instead of waiving fees for the first dwelling unit on existing lots of record, an alternative would be for the County to use other funding sources to pay the impact fees for a principle single-family dwelling unit on existing lots. This approach ensures that the funding in the impact fee account is sufficient to maintain the level of service on which the impact fees are based. The County would not need to pay fees for existing lots for which fair share contributions had been paid, since the credit for such payments would likely offset any impact fees assessed. Option 3: Transition Exemption for First Dwelling. An alternative to a permanent waiver of fees for the first dwelling unit is to make it a temporary transition provision. For example, the State impact fee enabling act in Texas allows owners of lots that were subdivided prior to the impact fee ordinance to pull a building permit within one year following adoption of the ordinance without being required to pay the fee. A longer time period than one year could be considered, but it should probably not exceed five years. The transition exemption could be a blanket one that applies to all building permits for all existing lots, or a more limited one such as the one -unit -per lot approach described above. Option 4: Exclude Selected Areas. A fourth alternative would be to exclude the area where most of the existing lots are located (i.e., Puna and Kau Districts) from the impact fee system. Exclusion means HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 16 that no impact fees would be collected in this area, and no impact fees would be spent there. Exclusion would not have to be permanent. For example, Kansas City, Missouri, first developed arterial street impact fees for the area north of the Missouri River, before preparing impact fees for the southern part of the city. In each area, the older part of the city that was annexed prior to 1950 was excluded from the impact fee system. Exclusion from the impact fee system would not be meant to penalize an area, but to lessen the burden of paying an impact fee. Other methods of funding new infrastructure could be explored for those areas. Option 5: Everyone Pays. A final option is not to provide any special treatment for existing lots. Most of the focus groups in both the Hilo and Kona workshops came up with this alternative as the preferred option. The consensus seemed to be thatif housing affordability is the concern, there should be a separate program to address that. This is the recommended approach. Affordable Housing The key characteristic of an impact fee is that the amount of the fee is proportional to the impact on facilities. To waive fees for affordable housing or other policy goals may weaken the defensibility of the impact fee system, since opponents could argue that it is not actually an impact fee, but an illegal tax disguised as a fee. Consequently, any waiver of fees for affordable housing or other purposes should be paid by other funding sources. Paying fees on behalf of existing lot owners as a means of encouraging affordable housing would provide a windfall for many property owners who do not actually need assistance. The recommended approach would provide assistance to first-time home buyers who earn less than 140 percent of the median family income and who are purchasing or building a single-family unit that costs less than the median home value, provided that the property is used as the buyer's primary residence. The assistance could be either in the form of an outright grant, or in the form of an interest-free loan that would be repaid when the qualifying homebuyer sells the house or ceases to live there. The loan approach would have the advantage that it would reduce the incentive to gain public assistance that is not really needed, and would also make the program mote self-sufficient if the loan repayments are earmarked for future impact fee assistance. If the qualifying party already owns the lot, the assistance would be used to pay the impact fees at time of building permit. In the event of a speculative project, the builder would pay the fees at time of building permit, and the assistance in the amount of the fees paid would be provided to the qualifying homebuyer at closing to reduce the total funds required to purchase the property at closing. Progressive Residential Fees One thing that can be done to mitigate the effect on affordable housing is to reduce fees for the smaller and more affordable units to the extent that it can be demonstrated that smaller units have less of an impact on the need for facilities. That option has been provided in this report, although the County would need to assess a flat rate for single-family homes if fees are collected at time of subdivision approval since the size of the house would not be known until a building permit is issued for the structure (see discussion below). Time of Collection �^ The current fair share assessments are imposed during the rezoning process, and are collected prior to /i final subdivision approval for single-family lots and prior to final plan approval for multi -family and HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 17 hotel/motel development. While collecting at subdivision gives the County more time to provide improvements ahead of the site's occupancy, collection of single-family fees at time of subdivision would be incompatible with the option of assessing single-family homes on the basis of dwelling unit size, since the square footage of the home is not known at that time. There seem to be two reasonable alternatives for dealing with time of collection: (1) collect impact fees from all development at the time of building permit issuance; or (2) collect fees for new single-family lots at the time of final subdivision approval, and collect fees for all other development (including single- family houses on existing lots) at building permit. However, since impact fees are designed to address the development's impact on infrastructure, it may be preferable to assess the fees at the time of building permit approval, if projects will develop slowly. Historically, in Hawaii County, large numbers of single- family lots have been approved with no homes being built for an extended period of time. One could argue that if the homes are not built, there is no impact on existing infrastructure and thus the fee should not be collected until a building permit is issued. Assessment and Benefit Districts In an impact fee system, it is important to clearly define the geographic areas within which impact fees will be collected and within which the fees collected will be spent. There are really two types of geographic areas that serve different functions in an impact fee system: assessment districts and benefit districts. An assessment district, which may also be called a service area, demes the area within which a set of common capital facilities provides service, and for which a fee schedule based on average costs within that district is calculated. Benefit districts, on the other hand, represent an area within which the fees collected must be spent. They ensure that improvements funded with impact fees are constructed within reasonable proximity of the fee -paying developments to help ensure that developments benefit from the improvements. The assessment district is the geographic level at which the impact fee is calculated within a jurisdiction such as a county. Calculating the fees at the county -wide level, based on the county -wide existing level of service, vastly simplifies the process. This was the approach used in the 1990 study as the basis of the County's current fair share assessments. Although some concerns were expressed that the cost of construction in the west is higher than in the east, cost data was not available to support differential fees, and all of the proposed impact fees were calculated on a county -wide basis. Concern has been expressed that a broad-based impact fee should be restricted to internal subdivision improvements like roads and parks, because otherwise owners of individual lots would not feel they were getting any benefit. However, impact fees must be used to expand capacity, and cannot be used to pave internal subdivision roads. Figure 2 PROPOSED BENEFIT DISTRICTS HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 18 ,'IN Through focus group discussions, the community has expressed a desire for multiple benefit districts for the purposes of collecting and spending the impact fee revenue. Based on that input and discussions `r.• with local staff, four regional benefit districts that conform with existing judicial boundaries are recommended, as illustrated in Figure 2. Under the proposal, the districts would be composed as follows: District 1, North and South Kohala; District 2, Hamakua, North and South Hilo; District 3, Puna and Kau; and District 4, North and South Kona. These same benefit districts could be used for most of the proposed impact fees. An exception is wastewater, where the fees should be earmarked and spent to improve the system to which the new customer has connected. Another suggestion from the focus groups was to allow some of the revenue collected in each benefit district to be used for projects with regional or island -wide benefit. To facilitate projects of regional benefit, it is recommended that the County allow up to 20 percent of the road, park, fire and police impact fees collected in any district to be used for projects located outside the district, provided that significant benefit will be provided to new development in the district in which the fees were collected. Up to 40 percent of solid waste fees could be used for out -of -district improvements, reflecting the larger share of centralized facilities (landfill and vehicles). All wastewater fees would be restricted to be spent on improving the system to which the new customer connects. Pre -Ordinance Credits Some building permits will be issued in projects for which developers have already paid fair share contributions. To prevent double -charging, it will be necessary to either reimburse the developer, or to reduce or eliminate the impact fees that are charged for those building permits. Since it is likely that developers passed along the cost of the fair share contribution to the extent possible in the sale of the lots, reimbursing the developers would have the effect of handing them windfall profits. A better alternative might be to reduce or eliminate the impact fees due to be paid at building permit. Such a policy would benefit the builder of the individual dwelling. The following approach could be used to implement the policy of pre -ordinance credits. Prior to the effective date of the ordinance, County planning staff would need to identify all parcels or subdivisions for which fair share contributions have been paid, and the amounts paid for each type of facility. If the project is built -out, no credits would be needed. If no development has yet occurred, the credit would be the amount paid, adjusted for inflation since the time of payment. If building permits have already been issued for a particular subdivision, but some development potential remains, the credit would be the amount paid, adjusted for inflation, less what the subdivision would have generated in impact fees had the fee schedule been in place. The resulting credit amounts would be available to offset impact fees otherwise due for building permits issued for the applicable parcels or within the subdivisions on a first-come, first-served basis until the credits are exhausted. The amount of the credits would be adjusted annually for inflation, using the same index that is used for the impact fees. A time limit, such as ten years, could be imposed on the use of the credits. Fair share assessments that were imposed as a condition of zoning approval, but have not yet been paid by the effective date of the impact fee ordinance (because the property has not been subdivided or site -planned) would be replaced by the obligation to pay impact fees at the time of building permit. Another issue that must be addressed is credits for developers who made impact fee -eligible contributions prior to the impact fee ordinance, but who did not receive credit against fait share HAWAII COUNTYkINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 19 contributions for the value of those contributions. Itis recommended that credits be provided for these types of improvements in much the same way as credits for fair share contributions. Post -Ordinance Reimbursements For fair share contributions and pre -ordinance contributions, credits that run with the land are recommended rather than developer reimbursements. So it may make sense to use the same approach when dealing with new developer exactions that occur after the impact fee ordinance is in place. However, an alternative approach is at least worthy of consideration, since the fair share credits affect a limited number of parcels and will expire in a certain number of years. The alternative approach is to reimburse developers who make eligible improvements with impact fees collected for the same type of facility from other developers who do not. This approach was pioneered by Raleigh, North Carolina when it established road and park impact fees in 1987, and although it has not been widely emulated by other jurisdictions, it has much to recommend it. Raleigh enters into a reimbursement agreement with each developer who makes an impact fee -eligible improvement. If the improvement is an expensive one, the reimbursement is scheduled to occur over a five-year period, subject to available funding. The City also categorizes each developer contribution as Priority I or Priority Il. Priority I projects include dedication of land or right-of-way and projects in the City's five-year capital improvements plan. Each year, the City sets aside a percentage of impact fees collected in each benefit zone (20 percent of park fees and 27 percent of road fees) into reimbursement accounts. If the reimbursement account has sufficient funds to pay all reimbursements owed for that year, all developers with outstanding reimbursements for that year receive full payment. If the funds are insufficient to reimburse all developers, developers with Priority I improvements are reimbursed first. If funds are still insufficient, each Priority I developer receives a pro rata share of his reimbursement amount, with the unpaid amount rolled over to the next year. The reimbursement approach used by Raleigh is considerably simpler to administer than a credit approach, and it also has the advantage that a predictable percentage of impact fee revenue is available to the local government to program for priority improvements. The first advantage would not be as pronounced for Hawaii County for the first few years, since staff would need to track fair share contribution credits for a number of years. However, those credits would affect a limited number of properties and would disappear after a few years. After that, the collection of fees at the building permit counter would be automatic for all permits, with no need to check to see if credits are available to offset the fees. The second advantage would also be somewhat attenuated in the first few years, since fair share credits would reduce the amount of fees collected, but the County would be guaranteed that subsequent developer contributions would not consume more than a fixed percentage of potential impact fee revenues. It is recommended that the County consider using a reimbursement approach similar to Raleigh's for post -ordinance developer contributions. Phase -In Period Following the adoption of the impact fee ordinance by the County Council, there needs to be a period of time before the impact fees actually go into effect (the "effective date"). This lapse of time is a common approach used by other jurisdictions when implementing impact fee programs. Some delay may be desired to give development projects already underway adequate time to apply for building HAWAI`1 COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 20 permits and otherwise complete their projects. The delay also provides notice to the public. In addition, County staff will need some time to put the administrative processes in place to implement the ordinance. This includes designating an impact fee administrator, developing the collection system and the qualifying process for a grant/loan program. After discussions with staff, it is recommended that the collection of impact fees go into effect one year from the date of ordinance adoption. The fair share assessments would continue to be in effect during this period, but would be repealed on the effective date of the impact fees. In addition, substantial new or increased impact fees are often phased -in over a period of six to 18 months. For example, the fees might go into effect initially at 50 percent, then go up to 75 percent after six months and 100 percent after a year. However, Hawaii County is somewhat unique in that some developments are already paying substantial fees, while others are not paying any fees at all. A phase-in period that gradually imposes fees equivalent to the current fair share assessments would provide a windfall for projects that had been assessed the fair share fees. To avoid these kinds of complications, no additional phase-in after the one-year period following ordinance adoption is recommended. Maximum Impact Fees The impact fees calculated in this report represent the maximum fee that could be adopted by the County. The impact fees could be adopted at less than 100 percent of the impact fee levels shown for each facility type. The County must maintain proportionality between land -uses in adopting a fee at less 100 percent. For example, if the County decided to adopt the Fite/EMS fee at 75 percent of the level calculated in this report, it would need to charge 75 percent of the maximum fee calculated for each land use category. The County should recognize that the fees adopted must be high enough to ensure adequate funds are available to reimburse developers when necessary. If fee revenue is insufficient to repay developers for improvements, the total time required for paying back developers would increase with fewer funds available for county impact fee funded projects. Road impact fees, in particular, should not be adopted at very low percentage of maximum net costs. This is because developers often make in-kind contributions in the form of tight -of -way dedication or actual roadway construction, and under an impact fee system receive a reimbursement for the equivalent value of such contributions (above any required dedications) against the fee. Therefore, if the fee is adopted at a very low percentage, fees collected will be too low for a developer to be fully compensated with reimbursements. In general, the County has considerable flexibility in imposing fees geographically, whether it be imposing fees in some areas and not others, or imposing fees at different percentages of the maximum rates in different areas. However, if this approach is taken, some modifications to the impact fee system should be considered. First of all, solid waste is an exception, since this is the only one of the impact fee facilities that has a major island -wide component (i.e., the landfill). If you are not going to charge the solid waste fee island - wide, it will be necessary to recalculate the solid waste fee to remove the landfill component of the cost. The County should also probably give up the flexibility of spending any of the money collected in a district outside the district. Our recommendation that the County be allowed to spend up to 20 percent of road, park, fire and police impact fees outside the benefit district in which the fees were collected, Hyl• provided some benefit to the paying district could be shown, assumes that the fees are applied island - HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 21 wide at the same percentage. If the project located outside the district has significant benefits to development in another district that is not paying that fee, or paying a lower fee, it may be difficult to establish that the fees are meeting the tests of equity and proportionality. Consequently, the mixing and matching alternative to island -wide application means the County will probably need to give up some of the flexibility of using fees outside the district in which the fees were collected. Finally, the County would probably want to show that the impact fee money is not simply being used to allow the County to take property tax money it had been spending in the areas that now have fees, and spending it instead in areas where no fees are being charged. If the fees can be shown to provide benefits to the fee -paying areas that they would not otherwise have seen, any equity concerns with this approach could be avoided. MAWAYI COUNTYMNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 22 CHAPTER 4: AGENCY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The subject of impact fees is complex, and requires a detailed understanding of many issues, including the legal requirements that test the validity of any adopted impact fee ordinance. Impact fees have been the subject of a large number of court cases throughout the United States, and the issues that have constituted these legal challenges are nationally recognized in terms of crafting defensible impact fee legislation at the county or municipal level. It is also important to understand that impact fees can be crafted to reflect important county values related to affordable housing and financial impact on builders and property owners, among others. It might be advantageous to hue consultants to consider a local desire to adopt an impact fee program and handing over a completed product in a relatively short period of time. However such a view is short-sighted and does not allow a community to educate itself in the nuances of an impact fee ordinance by engaging in the discussion and debate of such an important policy program. Impact fees oftentimes produce strong emotions (both pro and con) during the consideration of impact fees by any community. Consequently, it is important for communities to educate themselves about impact fees, and educate consultants about the issues important to them, in order to reach a point where the adopted policy clearly reflects the personality of the community. A summary of the agency and public participation events and participants in those events are presented in the Appendices. Overview The process of developing an impact fee program for Hawaii County purposefully included a component that provided for community and public agency input and education. This aspect of the project included public agency briefings and collection of data, focus group meetings, regional meetings with small group break-out discussions, a video conference, additional discussions with a group of individuals (the "Local Resource Team") who were knowledgeable about impact fees and able to provide a "big picture" sounding board for the project team, and use of the Hawaii County website to circulate information and work products. The various elements of the agency and public participation and education effort are discussed in more detail below. Agency Liaison Team In order to provide the consultants with the necessary information to develop the Needs Assessment, an Agency Liaison Team, consisting of representatives from County and State agencies, was formed to provide data on the following type of infrastructure and public facilities: transportation, parks, police, fire, solid waste and wastewater. A large volume of information needed to be compiled and organized by the agency liaisons for the consultants to complete the needs assessment. Without their assistance the needs assessment could not have been prepared. Public Participation and Education Public participation and education in the study process was determined to be a critical component for this study. Initially, the contract allotted for only one stakeholder meeting, however, as the effort progressed, it became obvious, that without public education, preparing an ordinance that could be implemented would be difficult. The contract was amended twice to ensure that adequate public HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 23 education would continue throughout the process. The subject material is not simple, but through a collaborative effort between the consultants and the county, several opportunities were provided to inform and keep the public involved through video conferences, the Internet, the distribution of a fact sheet, email communication and workshops. Informational Meetings: Key stakeholder organizations were invited to participate in two initial focus group meetings in Hilo (November 18, 2005) and Kona (November 20, 2005) as an introduction to the consultants. County Council: The consultants held an initial workshop with the County Council on November 21, 2006, to introduce themselves, present the time line for the project, present their initial memorandum and an Impact Fee 101 PowerPoint presentation. Video Conference: A video conference was held on January 17, 2006 that linked Kona, Hilo, Honolulu, and Duncan Associates in Austin, Texas. The consultants were on hand to provide a PowerPoint presentation on impact fees and to answer questions from the public. Planning Commission: The consultants also held a workshop with the Planning Commission on March 9, 2006 in Hilo with a PowerPoint presentation to introduce themselves and begin the conversation on impact fees. Ordinance Issues Workshop: Focus group meetings where held in Kona (March 8, 2006) and Hilo (March 10, 2006) to introduce and create a dialogue on those critical issues that needed to be decided on for the impact fee ordinance. Community participants brought forth positive ideas that were valuable insights for the consultants; in particular, the idea that a portion of the impact fee funds collected be used on an island -wide basis. Final Public Meetings: Two final public meetings were held in Hilo (August 15, 2006) and Captain Cook (August 16, 2006) to provide an overview of the final needs assessment and draft ordinance. The consultants were present with the Planning Director to field questions. The public was also informed that final work products would be forwarded to the County Council with any written comments submitted. Local Resource Team A Local Resource Team (LRT) was created to supplement the public outreach effort being advanced by the IPFNA Project Team (Planning Department; Helber Hastert & Fee Planners, Inc.; Duncan Associates; Alice Moon & Co). The primary intent of the LRT was to discuss problematic issues that were highlighted during the larger public Group Meetings being conducted in Kona and Hilo, and to brainstorm with the Project Team on how to deal with these issues during formulation of an ordinance to establish an impact fee system within the County Hawaii. The solicitation of "individuals" was based on a number of factors, including organizational affiliation, presence in the development industry, participation in community affairs, and interest in the impact fee issue. The goal was to obtain a wider perspective on the issues facing the adoption of an impact fee ordinance in Hawaii County. Overall, it was hoped that the LRT: (1) provided a more granular look at problem issues and concerns; (2) provided a "big picture" perspective; and, (3) introduced a creative approach to problem solving. Composition of the LRT was based on a combination of factors, including previous experience with and knowledge of impact fees, experience in government, dual HAWAVI COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AssESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 24 NJ C familiarity with the development process from a public, private and community sector basis, and the ability to provide a local and island -wide perspective. The LRT assisted in advising the project team and in reviewing the final work products. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 25 this page intentionally left blank 70 HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 26 ( Ww CHAPTERS: LESSONS LEARNED Although the agency and public participation meetings provided opportunities for participants to gain a better understanding of impact fees, impact fees are a complex funding mechanism intended to help solve even more complex infrastructure problems. The following are some of the lessons learned during the agency and public sessions: o Education for all participants is an ongoing process. It is a key performance measure for a successful project. Plan and prepare to provide multiple opportunities to address questions and provide answers. o Understand that it is impossible to reach every stakeholder, in our case, the large percentage of vacant lot owners who do not reside on Hawaii Island. Given that, seize the opportunity of ongoing community planning efforts and initiatives, such as Community Development Plan (CDP) efforts, neighborhood boards and other grassroots efforts, as they serve as perfect venues for bringing the dialogue to the community. o Impact fees alone will not solve the County's infrastructure problems; they are one source for partial financing of new infrastructure and public facilities. Impact fees need to be looked at as a solution in perspective with all financing options, which need to be identified and implemented by decision -makers and agencies. o The County of Hawaii needs to take a more comprehensive look at financing infrastructure, share that vision with the public, and encourage creative public & private efforts to ensure completion of specific improvements. o There are no easy answers on how to address impact fees and their effect on affordable housing. Fees cannot be waived, but may be paid from grants or other funding sources. Funding sources for grants should be explored and identified early on in the process. o Should an impact fee ordinance be implemented, current administrative procedures need to be retooled and additional staff may be needed to administer the impact fee system. Existing systems do not necessarily meet the needs of this new program. This has been a major concern and focus of discussion among the agency liaisons. o Fees may be imposed at less than 100 percent the maximum allowable amount, provided they are applied proportionately to all land uses. o Fees may be tailored to reflect the unique circumstances, needs and aspirations of individual communities. Specific fees can be applied to a district or community that is more ready and prepared to implement impact fees. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 27 w this page intentionally left blank HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 28 CHAPTER 6: NEXT STEPS/IMPLEMENTATION The County has a choice to adopt an impact fee ordinance based on this study or not to adopt an impact fee ordinance at this time and continue to fund new infrastructure and public facilities with existing planning and budgetary processes. Infrastructure financing options currently utilized by the County include bond issues, current revenues, state and federal funding, and the "fair share" contribution program. The County needs to determine the adequacy of current funding sources with the need for new facilities along with the legality of the current "fair share" assessment system. Action Items If Impact Fees Not Adopted Should the County of Hawaii decide not adopt an impact fee ordinance, the following recommendations are suggested: O A more extensive and comprehensive discussion of funding options for new infrastructure and public facilities should take place, with the consideration of impact fees in the context of other financing tools. This was an overarching theme that permeated all aspects of public discussion during this project. O An Impact Fee Working Group should be established to receive an overview and education of the County's present budgetary and planning process for funding new infrastructure and informed of existing financing tools available to government. The Working Group would be tasked with considering and exploring new and creative financing options, including impact fees. A collaborative approach involving developers, businesses, non-profit organizations, local impact fee "experts" and government agencies would provide an opportunity to work on specific infrastructure improvements. The Working Group could also be tasked with identifying specific infrastructure projects with consideration of the General Plan, Community Development Plans and Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget and proceed to implement a collaborative resolution to the planning, implementation and construction of specific projects. Action Items if Impact Fees Adopted Should the County of Hawaii decide to adopt an impact fee ordinance there are also several options for implementing a fair and legally -defensible system. A full-fledged impact fee program could be imposed using maximum fees island -wide for roads, parks, fire, police solid waste and wastewater. Various options and variations could also be implemented. The maximum fees could be used as a guide for establishing a lower, more socially acceptable and reasonable impact fee. A single benefit district could be selected as a test case or impact fees could be collected for a particular type of infrastructure, such as for roads only. Whichever options are selected, should the impact fee ordinance proceed to adoption, it is recommended that the Mayor immediately proceed with the following: O Designate an appropriate agency to be the overall administrator of the impact fee program. In other jurisdictions, this responsibility has fallen on the building permit department (which is responsible for collection of the fee), the finance department (which is responsible for administration of the impact fee accounts), or the planning department. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 29 o Form an Impact Fee Implementation Committee (IFIL) consisting of affected agencies to assist in developing the administrative procedures for implementing the Impact Fee Program. The decisions/responsibilities for the IFIC would include, among others: o Review the options and decide the course of action for the critical policy issues listed in the Executive Surnmary. o Identify a source of funding for a grant system to be implemented that would provide relief for qualifying residents, and design procedures to determine who receives a grant to address affordability and affordable housing concerns. o Develop a collection process and identify agencies involved, system fat tracking of funds and pre -ordinance offsets. o Develop a system for annual reports so that funds are disbursed within 6 years, in accordance with HRS, Chapter 45, Impact Fees. o Identify specific projects that impact fees would be applied to in consideration of the General Plan, Community Development Plans, and Capital Improvement Projects. o Produce a Manual of Operations Depending on how far into the future the County determines the effective date of the Ordinance, a �++ consultant could be contracted to assist with formulating, developing and expediting the design of the program and the above tasks so that the Ordinance is implemented in a timely manner. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 30 PART 11: IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONSCHAPTER 7: ROADS This section of the study discusses road impact fees for Hawaii County. One of the most costly impacts associated with new development is on the road system. Road impact fees are designed to rationalize the process of ad hoc, negotiated exactions and "level the playing field" by requiring all developers to pay an impact fee based on their impact on the major roadway system. Under an impact fee system, developers who are required to make improvements to the major roadway system will receive credit against their impact fees for the value of their contributions. Credit provisions and other issues will be addressed in the impact fee ordinance. The 1998 Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan, prepared by the State in association with the County, identifies the island's major transportation improvement needs to support anticipated growth to the year 2020. The major highways on the island are the Hawaii Belt Highway and the Mamalahoa Highway, which together link the major towns of all of the districts except North Kohala. Major improvement needs identified by the Transportation Plan include the reconstruction of the Saddle Road (Highway 200) and the widening of Queen Kaahumanu Highway (Highway 19) to four lanes between Waikoloa Road and Kona International Airport at Keahole. Many of the island's road capacity improvement needs are on the State road system (see Table 10). Previously, State law had restricted road impact fees outside of Oahu from being used to help fund State road improvements, but this restriction was lifted in the last legislative session (a copy of the Act is �.., provided in Appendix H).' Nonetheless, this report provides the option of implementing a road impact fee for County roads only, or both County and State roads. Tier 1 (1998-2005) Tier 2 (2006-2010) Tier 3 (2011-2020) Tier 4 (Unfunded) Table 10 IMPROVEMENT NEEDS $112,400,000 $291,000,000 $4900,000 $155,100,000 $103,100,000 $307,800,000 $41 Source: Frederick R. Harris, Inc.. Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan, May 1998. Assessment and Benefit Districts Concern has been expressed that a broad-based impact fee should be used to facilitate internal subdivision improvements like roads and parks, because otherwise owners of individual lots would not feel they were getting any benefit from the expenditure of the impact fees collected. However, road impact fees must be used to expand capacity, and cannot be used to pave internal subdivision roads. 8 2006 Act 197 (Senate Bill 2901), effective July 1, 2006, amends Part VIII, Impact Fees of Chapter 264, Highways, to delete the definition of county, which was defined as counties having more than 500,000 residents. HAWAII COUNTYIINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 31 Many of the capacity needs identified in Hawaii County are on State roads and major County roads, in which case they could reasonably be county -wide. Based on available road cost data and the integrated nature of the road major road network, itis recommended that the proposed road impact fees be calculated county -wide. Based on focus group discussions, the community has expressed a desire for multiple benefit districts. For the purposes of collecting and spending the impact fee revenue it is recommended that the County establish four road impact fee benefit districts (see Figure 2 in the Policy Issues section). To facilitate projects of regional benefit, it is recommended that up to 20 percent of the impact fees collected in any district be allowed to be used for projects located outside the district, provided that significant benefit will be provided to new development in the district in which the fees were collected. Service Unit A service unit creates the link between supply (roadway capacity) and demand (traffic generated by new development). An appropriate service unit basis for road impact fees is vehicle -miles of travel (VMT). Vehicle -miles is a combination of the number of vehicles traveling during a given time period and the distance (in miles) that these vehicles travel. The two time periods most often used in traffic analysis are the 24-hour weekday (average daily trips or ADT) and the single hour of the weekday with the highest traffic volume (peak hour trips or PHI). Average daily trips are the best measure for the amount of motor fuel tax that will be generated by new development, which may be used to calculate a revenue credit. In addition, average daily trip data are less variable than peak hour trips, which can vary considerably based on the size and demographic make- up of a community. For these reasons, it is recommended that average daily VMT be utilized as the service unit for the road impact fee. Major Roadway System A road impact fee program should include a clear definition of the major roadway system that is to be funded with the impact fees. In the context of a consumption -based road impact fee methodology, the definition of the major roadway system affects the average trip length, as well as the types of improvements for which revenue and construction credits against the fees must be given to developers. Currently, the County directly funds growth -related improvements only to County roads and indirectly funds improvements to State and County roads through motor fuel tax or other highway user fees generated by County residents and businesses. Countyroads that function as arterials or collectors are entirely the responsibility of the County, while State Highways are the responsibility of the State. The County currently may require developers to dedicate right-of-way (ROW) or make improvements to major roads as part of the development approval process. The cost of the improvement or value of the ROW may be utilized to offset fair share contributions. Similarly, to the extent that a developer is required to make an improvement to the major road network or purchase ROW, the impact fee would be offset by a credit for the improvements. The functional classification system for major State and County roads in Hawaii is defined by the County's General Plan (see Figure 3). For the purpose of the road impact fees calculated for this study, HAWA0 COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 32 6� C the major roadway system is proposed to be defined as existing State and County primary and secondary arterial roads and collector roads. `.I:\III W%\ hM1A ki, 141' y'A I Figure 3 MAJOR ROADWAY SYSTEM f i 1•. Fi'H �i IU; It 14' 41111, 1 Nil t � 011 t t i hl,^•I 1x,f ht . q 1' r 1eOL '0 Exiled" 9 1 4 t s i"Ak(hE A t1,1 0111 4 1t M1M1 HAWAI'l COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY 'r, 11 �M1P1\ t Ce�e«+riArterial Proposed Collector Proposed Arterial 1FIC I(1k) September 19, 2006, Page 33 HAWAI'l COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY 'r, 11 �M1P1\ t Ce�e«+riArterial Proposed Collector Proposed Arterial 1FIC I(1k) September 19, 2006, Page 33 An inventory of the existing major roadway system was prepared as part of this project and is presented in Table 94 in Appendix A. The major purpose of the inventory is to determine the total amount of travel on the major roadway system, expressed in vehicle -miles of travel (VMT), and system -wide capacity, expressed in vehicle -miles of capacity (VMC). Methodology The recommended methodology is to base the road impact fees on the existing level of service. As discussed in the Phase I policy memorandum, basing the impact fees on a higher -than -existing level of service creates existing deficiencies that must be funded and requires credit against the impact fees for the revenue generated by new development and used to remedy the deficiencies. To avoid these complications, the recommended approach is to base all impact fees on the existing level of service. The proposed road impact fee methodology relies on a "consumption -based" model, which basically charges a new development the cost of replacing the capacity that it consumes on the major roadway system. That is, for every vehicle -mile of travel (VMT) generated by the development, the road impact fee charges the net cost to construct an additional vehicle -mile of capacity (VMC). Since travel is never evenly distributed throughout a roadway system, actual roadway systems require more than one unit of capacity for every unit of demand in order for the system to function at an acceptable level of service. Suppose for example, that the County completes a major widening project. The completed road is likely to have a significant amount of excess capacity for some period of time. If the entire system has just enough capacity to accommodate all of the vehicle -miles of travel, then the excess capacity on this segment must be balanced by another segment being over -capacity. Clearly, roadway systems in the real world need more total aggregate capacity than the total aggregate demand, because the traffic does not always precisely match the available capacity. Consequently, the standard consumption -based model generally underestimates the full cost of accommodating new development at the existing level of service. In most rapidly growing communities, some roadways will be experiencing an unacceptable level of congestion at any given point in time. One of the principles of impact fees is that new development should not be charged for a higher level of service than is provided to existing development. In the context of road impact fees, this has sometimes been interpreted to mean that impact fees should not be spent on roadways that are already over -capacity. A variant of this approach is that impact fees should only be used to fund a percentage of the project that can be attributed to providing additional capacity beyond what is needed to remedy any existing deficiency. These approaches for dealing with existing deficiencies create several types of problems. A major one is that impact fees are restricted from being spent on roadways that are most in need of improvement. The approach that allows a percentage of the cost to be funded complicates impact fee administration by requiring that the portion of the cost of each improvement that is attributable to remedying deficiencies be funded from a different revenue source. Finally, these approaches ignore the interconnectedness of the major roadway system. For example, road impact fees could not be spent directly to improve a deficient segment, but could be spent to improve or construct a parallel roadway that would also relieve the congestion. The most important objection, however, is that it is not necessary to address existing deficiencies in a consumption -based system, which, unlike an improvements -driven system, is not really designed to HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 34 recover the full costs to maintain the desired LOS on all roadway segments. Instead, the standard consumption -based method is only designed to maintain a minimum one-to-one overall ratio between system demand and system capacity. Consequently, under a standard consumption -based system, the level of service standard is really a systemwide VMC/VMT ratio of one. Since the County's major roadway system currently operates at better than this LOS (see Table 19), the consumption -based method assumes a one-to-one ratio. The consumption -based methodology is recommended for use in the road impact fee system for Hawaii County. While the actual VMC/VMT ratio is much higher than one-to-one, this approach utilizes the more conservative ratio in evaluating the system -wide level of service on which road impact fees are based. The recommended impact fee formula is presented in Figure 4. Figure 4 ROAD IMPACT FEE FORMULA IMPACTFEE = VMT x NET COST/VMT Where: VMT = TRIPS x % NEW x LENGTH + 2 NET COSTNMT = COSTNMC x VMCNMT - CREDITNMT TRIPS = Trip ends during an average weekday % NEW = Percent of trips that are primary trips, as opposed to passby or diverted -link trips LENGTH = Average length of a trip on the major roadway system 2 = Avoids double -counting trips for origin and destination COSTNMC = Average cost to add a new daily vehicle -mile of capacity VMCNMT = System -wide ratio of VMC to VMT on the major roadway system (assumed 1:1) CREDITNMT 0 DEBTNMT + PASTNMT + GRANTNMT DEBTNMT = Outstanding debt used for capacity improvements on existing road facilities divided by total existing VMT PASTNMT = The net present value of property taxe s paid over the last five years by vacant land for road capacity improvements, including general fund expenditures as well as debt service payments, per VMT GRANTNMT = The net present value of future Federal and State roadway capacity funding anticipated to be forthcoming per VMT over the next 20 years HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 35 Travel Demand The travel demand generated by specific land use types is a product of three factors: 1) trip generation; 2) percent new trips; and 3) trip length. The result is the vehicle -miles of travel (VMT) generated by a unit of development. Trip Generation Trip generation rates are based on information published in the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trp Generation manual. Trip generation rates represent trip ends, or driveway crossings at the site of a land use. Thus, a single one-way trip from home to work counts as one trip end for the residence and one trip end for the work place, for a total of two trip ends. To avoid ovet-counting, all trip rates have been divided by two. This places the burden of travel equally between the origin and destination of the trip and eliminates double -charging for any particular trip. To date, few road impact fees have been adopted that vary by the size of the dwelling unit. This is largely because road impact fees are generally based on national trip generation rate data, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual does not provide rates by dwelling unit size. However, the fact that trip generation rates for residential uses vary by the size of the household is actually well documented in the transportation planning literature. This study gives the County the option of establishing impact fees for single-family housing based on the size of the dwelling unit. The size of the dwelling unit is related to the number of residents, and the average number of vehicle trips generated is strongly related to the number of people living in the dwelling unit. The average household size of single-family detached units by number of bedrooms is available from 2000 Census five -percent sample data, which is presented in Appendix C. This information is combined with the trip rate data by household size presented in the previous table to derive daily trip rates by the size of the unit, represented by bedrooms, as shown in Table 11. Table 11 Y TRIPS Up to Two 2.55 8.45 2.97 9.72 Four 3.49 11.04 Five or more 4.22 12.82 I Average 2.92 9.57 1 Source: Average household sizes from Table 100; daily trips derived from Transportation Research Board, NCHRP Report 365, 'Travel Estimation Techniques for Urban Planning," Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, Table 9 (for areas with populations of 50.000 to 199,999), 1998. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 36 To determine a relationship between the 500 average square footage of single-family 1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft. detached units, the number of bedrooms and 14,00 trip generation, the consultant analyzed a 1,750 sample with compiled data on all 630 single- 1200. family homes listed for sale in Hawaii County 10.54 from the National Association of Realtors 10.00 o website (www.realtor.com) on October 19,o goo 2005. To this data base, variables for daily trip rates were added, consisting of the trip $ 600 rates by number of bedrooms presented in the previous table. Regression analysis was then a 4.00 performed to determine the relationship 2.00 between unit size in square feet and trip rates. Linear, semi -logarithmic and logarithmic 000 regressions were performed, and the logarithmic equation was determined to provide the best explanation of the data.' Figure 5 DAILY TRIPS BY UNIT SIZE 500 1,500 2,500 3,500 4,500 Single -Family Unit Size (sq. ft.) The curve described by the equation for peak hour trips is shown in Figure 5. As can be seen, the relationship between size and trip generation is positive but modest. Many large homes are occupied by empty -nesters or used as second homes. Nevertheless, on average larger homes do have somewhat more impact on the road system. Using the regression equation, average daily trip rates were derived for five size categories based on square footage. The results are shown in Table 12. Table 12 SINGLE-FAMILY TRIPS BY SQUARE FOOTAGE Less than 1,000 sq. ft. 500 8.44 1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft. 1,250 9.58 1,500 - 1,999 sq. ft. 1,750 10.03 2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft. 2,500 10.54 3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft. 3,500 11.04 4,000 sq. ft. or more 4,500 11.4.3 Source: Daily trips derived using the regression equation formula and the midpoints of the size categories. New Trip Factor Trip rates also need to be adjusted by a "new trip factor" to exclude pass -by and diverted -link trips. This adjustment is intended to reduce the possibility of over -counting by only including primary trips generated by the development. Pass -by trips are those trips that are already on a particular route for a different purpose and simply stop at a particular development on that route. For example, a stop at a convenience store on the way home from the office is a pass -by trip for the convenience store. A 9 The equation for average daily trips is Ln (y) =0.138385 * Ln(x) + 1.272444, where y is average daily trips and x is the floor area of the unit in square feet; the W is 0.42863 and the t -statistics are 21.705 for the x -coefficient and 27.119 for the y -intercept. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 37 pass -by trip does not create an additional burden on the street system and therefore should not be counted in the assessment of impact fees. A diverted -link trip is similar to a pass -by trip, but a diversion �j is made from the regular route to make an interim stop. The reduction for pass -by and diverted -link ✓✓ trips was drawn from ITE and other published information. Average Trip Length In the context of a road impact fee based on a consumption -based methodology, we are interested in detertr;ning the average length of a trip on the major roadway system within Hawaii County's jurisdiction. An inventory of the County's major roadway system was prepared as part of this project (see Table 94 in Appendix A). Traffic counts were available for about forty percent of the major road network. It is likely that roads for which counts are available have higher traffic volumes than toads for which no counts were available. To take this into account, volumes for roads without counts were assumed to have, on average, only three-quarter the volumes on roads with counts. Based on these data and assumptions, the total demand on the major County and State roadway system is estimated to be about 3.5 million VMT, with total demand on County roads accounting for 1.0 million VMT, as shown in Table 13. Table 13 ESTIMATED ACTUAL VEHICLE -MILES OF TRAVEL ... Total Prim. Arterial 125.2 872,711 5,228 3.0 15,684 888,39 Sec. Arterial 461.0 1,280,814 2,084 3.8 7,919 1,288,733 Major Collector 109.2 128,996 886 4.8 4,253 133,24 Minor Collector 1.8 3,164 1,318 133.2 175,558 178,72 State Roads 697.2 2,285,686 9,516 144.8 203,414 2,489,09 Prim. Arterial 22.4 195,868 6,558 0.0 0 195,86 Sec. Arterial 104.3 136,339 980 0.0 0 136,33 Majoruollector 187.7 599,138 2,394 34.3 82,114 681,25 County Roads 314.3 931,344 9,932 34.3 82,114 1,013,459 Total 1,011.5 3,217,031 19,448.0 179.1 285,528 3,502,55 Notes: "Ln -Mi w/Counts' is lane -miles of road segments with recent traffic counts; "Observed VMT" is average annual daily travel on road segments with counts: "3/4 Trips/Lane' is 3/4 times the ratio of observed VMT to lane -miles with counts: "Ln -Mi w/o Counts" is lane -miles of segments without recent traffic count data; "Estimated VMT' is estimated average daily VMT on segments without counts (product of 3/4 VMT and lane -miles without counts): 'Total VMT' Is sum of observed and estimated VMT. Source: Table 94 in Appendix A. The average length of a trip on the County's major roadway system can be estimated by dividing the total vehicle -miles of travel (VMT) on the major road system by the total number of trips that are generated by existing land uses in Hawaii. Multiplying trip generation rates by existing land use results in an estimate of 0.51 million daily trips generated by existing development, as shown in the following table. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 38 Table 14 TOTAL DAILY' Single -Family Dwelling 58,772 4.79 281,518 Multi-Family/Other Dwelling 17,153 3.36 57,634 Hotel/Motel Room 10,513 3.45 36,270 Shopping Center/General Retail 1,000 sq. ft. 5,307 13.31 70,63E Office/Other Institutional 1,000 sq. ft. 4,551 5.51 25,076 Medical Office 1,000 sq. ft. 269 18.07 4,859 Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. 417 3.48 1,451 Mini -Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 248 1.25 31C Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 7,956 2.48 19,731 Church/Synagogue 1,000 sq. ft. 402 4.56 1,83: Elementary/Secondary School 1,000 sq. ft. 608 6.85 4,16E Nursing Home 1,000 sq. ft. 216 3.05 656 u tm1 1.000 so. ft. 245 8.79 2,15 hotel/motel rooms based on 2000 hotel room count of 10,041 from Hawai'i County Data Book, Table 7.3, data for 2005 derived from total visitor growth rate projected increase of 2% per year from Hawaii County Genera/ Plan: daily trip generation from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, T" Ed., 2003 (shopping center rate has been multiplied by a 0.62 new trip factor). 0" Dividing total VMT on the major roadway system by the estimated trips generated by existing development yields an average trip length. As shown in Table 15, the average trip length on the County's major road system is approximately 2.00 miles on County roads and a total of 6.92 miles on all major roads, including State roads. Table 15 3E TRIP I Total Estimated Daily Vehicle -Miles of Travel, County Roads (VMT) 1 Total Daily Trips Average Trip Length, County Roads (miles) Estimated Daily Vehicle -Miles of Travel (VMT) 3,502,681 6.92 Source: Total daily trips from preceding table: VMT from Table 13. The national average trip lengths derived from the U.S. Department of Transportation's 2001 National Household Travel Survey for a variety of trip purposes, including home -to -work trips, doctor/dentist, school/church, shopping, and other personal trips are shown in Table 16 below. The average trip length on Hawaii County's major roadway system, including State roads, is 70 percent of the national average. This is not surprising, since the trip length calculation excludes travel on the County's HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 39 unclassified local roads. Reducing all of the national trip lengths by purpose by this adjustment factor yields the following estimates of local trip lengths by trip purpose. '^p Table 16 •✓' AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH BY TRIP PURPOSE it Friends/Relatives 14.99 0.20 3.00 0.70 10.49 or from Work 12.19 0.20 2.44 0.70 8.53 sidential* 10.77 0.20 2.15 0.70 7.54 ctor/Dentist 9.89 0.20 1.98 0.70 6.92 erage 9.82 0.20 2.00 0.70 6.92 cool/Church 7.50 0.20 1.50 0.70 5.25 nily/Personal 7.43 0.20 1.49 0.70 5.20 * weighted based on 40% work trips and 60% average trips Source, National trip lengths from US. Department of Transportation, National Household Travel Survey, 2001; local average trip length from Table 15, Travel Demand Summary The result of combining trip generation rates, primary trip factors and localized average trip lengths is a travel demand schedule that establishes the daily VMT during the average weekday on the major roadway system generated by various land use types per unit of development in Hawaii County. The recommended travel demand schedule is presented in Table 17. The schedule provides the option of assessing single-family detached development based on the overall average trip generation or on trip generation rates that vary by the size of the dwelling unit. In addition, the schedule provides the option of basing the fee on major County roads only, or including both State and County roads. HAWAVI COUNMINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 40 Table 17 r TRAVEL DEMAND SCHEDULE u� Less than 1,000 sq, ft. 210 Dwelling 4.22 100% 2.15 9.09 7.54 31.8 1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft. 210 Dwelling 4.79 100% 2.15 10.32 7.54 36.1 1,500 - 1,999 sq. ft. 210 Dwelling 5.02 100% 2.15 10.80 7.54 37.8 2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft. 210 Dwelling 5.27 100% 2.15 11.35 7.54 39.7 3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft. 210 Dwelling 5.52 100% 2.15 11.89 7.54 41.6 4,000 sq ft or more 210 Dwelling 5.72 100% 2.15 12.31 7.54 43.0 Single -Family Det. Avg. 210 Dwelling 4.79 100% 2.15 10.32 7.54 36.1 Multi -Family 220 Dwelling 3.36 100% 2.15 7.24 7.54 25.: Hotel/Motel 310/320 Room 3.45 100% 3.00 10.34 10.49 36.: Retail/Commercial 820 1000 sq. ft. 21.47 62% 1.32 17.60 4.63 61.! Office 710 1000 sq. ft. 5.51 100% 2.44 13.42 8.53 46. Industrial Park 130 1000 sq. ft. 3.48 100%, 2.44 8.48 8.53 29.1 Warehouse 150 1000 sq. ft. 2.48 100% 2.00 4.96 6.92 17. Source. "ADT" is 1/2 of daily trips from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 71h ed., 2003; other institutional ADT based on office ADT rate; single-family trip rates by sq, footage categories from Table 12; primary trip percentages for retail/commercial uses from ITE, Trip Generation Handbook, March 2001 (additional 10% deducted from non-passby percentage for shopping centers to account for diverted -link trips); percentage for elementary/secondary school based on Preston Hitchens, "Trip Generation of Day Care Centers," 1990 ITE Compendium; local average trip lengths from Table 16. Roadway Capacity Nationally -accepted level of service (LOS) categories have been developed by the transportation engineering profession. Six categories, ranging from LOS A to LOS F, qualitatively describe driving conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. LOS A represents free flow, while LOS F represents the breakdown of traffic flow, characterized by stop -and -go conditions. Service volume capacity is a quantitative measure, expressed in terms of the rate of flow (vehicles passing a point during a period of time). Service volume capacity represents the maximum rate of flow that can be accommodated by a particular type of roadway while still maintaining a specified LOS. The service volume capacity at LOS E represents that maximum volume that can be accommodated before the flow breaks down into stop -and -go conditions that characterize LOS F, and thus represents the ultimate capacity of the roadway. HAWArI COUNTYUNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 41 Church/Synagogue 560 1000 sq. ft. 4.56 100%, 1.49 6.77 5.20 23.1 Elementary/Sec. School 520/530 1000 sq. ft. 6.85 24%, 1.50 2.46 5.25 8.1 Hospital 610 1000 sq. ft. 8.79 100% 2.44 21.42 8.53 74. Nursing Home 620 1000 sq. ft. 3.05 100% 1.98 6.03 6.92 21. Source. "ADT" is 1/2 of daily trips from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 71h ed., 2003; other institutional ADT based on office ADT rate; single-family trip rates by sq, footage categories from Table 12; primary trip percentages for retail/commercial uses from ITE, Trip Generation Handbook, March 2001 (additional 10% deducted from non-passby percentage for shopping centers to account for diverted -link trips); percentage for elementary/secondary school based on Preston Hitchens, "Trip Generation of Day Care Centers," 1990 ITE Compendium; local average trip lengths from Table 16. Roadway Capacity Nationally -accepted level of service (LOS) categories have been developed by the transportation engineering profession. Six categories, ranging from LOS A to LOS F, qualitatively describe driving conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. LOS A represents free flow, while LOS F represents the breakdown of traffic flow, characterized by stop -and -go conditions. Service volume capacity is a quantitative measure, expressed in terms of the rate of flow (vehicles passing a point during a period of time). Service volume capacity represents the maximum rate of flow that can be accommodated by a particular type of roadway while still maintaining a specified LOS. The service volume capacity at LOS E represents that maximum volume that can be accommodated before the flow breaks down into stop -and -go conditions that characterize LOS F, and thus represents the ultimate capacity of the roadway. HAWArI COUNTYUNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 41 The capacity of an individual roadway depends on a number of factors, including number of lanes, lane width, topography, percent of truck traffic, etc. In impact fee analysis, generalized capacity estimates are typically used based strictly on number of lanes. The Florida Department of Transportation has done extensive work developing generalized capacity estimates to be used for planning purposes based on Highway Capacity Manual procedures, and their work will be used to develop planning -level capacity estimates for use in this analysis. As can be seen in Table 18, major roadways tend to be able to accommodate about 6,500 vehicles per lane per day. Table 18 HICLE CAPACITIES 2 -Lane Undivided 13,000 6,500 2 -Lane Divided or 3 -Lane 17,100 5,700 4 -Lane Undivided 25,900 6,475 Source: Data for Class If arterial roads (2.0-4.5 signalized intersections per mile) from Florida Department of Transportation, 2002 Qua##Level o/Service Handbook, 2002. Table 41: Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Florida's Urbanized Areas. The inventory of Hawai`i's major roadway system, including segment descriptions, segment lengths in miles, number of lanes, number of lane -miles, generalized daily capacity and average daily volumes, is presented in Appendix A, Table 94. The estimated existing system -wide demand based on available �+ traffic count data is presented in Table 13. Dividing the system -wide capacity (VMC) by system -wide demand (VMT) yields the VMC/VMT ratio. As shown in Table 19, the major roadway system currently has about 121 percent more capacity than demand. This represents the current system -wide level of service. However, this level of service may not be sustainable as the community grows, and instead may represent some amount of excess capacity. For this study, a conservative system -wide VMC/VMT ratio of 1.00 will be used as the level of service in the impact fee calculations. Table 19 Source: Actual VMC from Table 94 of Appendix A: estimated VMT from Table 13. HAWAVI COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 42 Cost per Service Unit 1*AW Expanding the capacity of the County's major roadway system is primarily accomplished by widening existing roadway cross-sections to accommodate additional through lanes and by building new roads and bridges. While impact fees can be used for intersection improvements and other types of capacity enhancements, it is more difficult to quantify the capacity added by these types of improvements in terms of vehicle -miles of capacity. In a consumption -based transportation impact fee system, roadway improvement costs are entered into the formula as an average cost for providing new roadway capacity. Assuming there are no dramatic changes to the mix of the type of improvements, it is not necessary to revisit impact fees each time that the capital improvement program changes. Updates at reasonable periodic intervals are sufficient to analyze potential changes to average costs. The current cost to add additional capacity to the existing major roadway system can be estimated using historical costs as well as planned projects for which bids have been received. Table 20 below summarizes the County's capacity -expanding improvements to its major roadway system from 2000 to 2005, including the cost and the vehicle -miles of capacity (VMC) added by each improvement. Projects for which it was impossible to quantify the vehicle -miles of capacity added by the improvement were excluded. Based on available cost data, the County's road cost is approximately $4.4 million pet lane - mile, excluding bridge construction, and $5.8 million including bridge replacements. Table 20 ROADIMPH Mamalahoa Hwy 0.79 2 4 1.58 13,000 26,000 10,270 $7,258 Mohouli Street Extension 1.35 0 2 2.70 0 13,000 17,550 $11,207 Puainako Street Extension 4.50 0 2 9.00 0 13,000 58,500 $32,310 Kuakini Hwy Palani to Hualalai 0.49 2 4 0.98 13,000 26,000 6,370 $12,574 Subtotal, Segment Improvements 7.13 1 2 14.26 26,000 78,000 92,690 $63,350 Komohana St./Alenaio Stream 0.02 2 4 0.04 13,000 26,000 260 $5,87 Oshiro, Kalopa/Aliipali 8 Kaumoali 0.03 1 2 0.03 6,500 13,000 195 $2,31 Honomu Bridge Replacement 0.02 1 2 0.02 6,500 13,000 130 $2,51 Inoino Gulch Bridge Replacement 0.01 1 2 0.01 6,500 13,000 65 $1,12 Onomea Camp Rd Bridge Replace 0.01 1 2 0.01 6,500 13,000 65 $5E Kawailani Street Bridge Replace 0.02 2 4 0.04 13,000 26,000 260 $7,7E Subtotal, Bridge Replacements 0.11 0.15 52,000 104,000 975 $20,2( Total 14.41 93,61ib $63,bb3,,= Source: Road segments, miles, lanes and costs from Hawai'i County; total cost includes actual construction cost or bid cost if final cost not available, design cost and right-of-way cost if applicable; costs have been adjusted by Engineering News -Record Construction Cost Index from date of completion to January 2006; daily capacity before and after from Table 18; added VMC is added capacity (difference between before and after capacity) times segment length. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 43 The calculation of the cost per service unit can be derived from the recent thoroughfare improvement project costs. As shown in Table 21, the average cost per service for new road construction including bridges is $892. However, since the bridge cost per VMC is much higher than general road construction .w✓ costs per VMC, the cost per VMC excluding bridges may more accurately reflect the average cost of the entire road system. The average cost per VMC is $683 if bridge projects are excluded. Table 21 ROAD COST PER SERVICE UNIT Recent Road Improvement Costs $83,553,355 $63,350,062 Average Cost per Lane -Mile $5,798,290 $4,442,501 Recent Road Improvement Costs $83,553,355 $63,350,062 Cost oar VMC Source: Recent road improvement cost, added lane -miles and added VMC from Table 20, Net Cost per Service Unit In the calculation of the impact of new development on roadway infrastructure, credit should be given for taxes that will be paid by new development and used to retire outstanding debt for past major roadway improvements. Credit will also be provided in this study for past property taxes on vacant property, as well as motor fuel taxes that will be generated by new development and used to pay for capacity -related major road improvements. Roadway systems in Hawaii County are generally financed through Federal, State and County programs. The County fuel tax and vehicular taxes are deposited to the County's Highway Fund. According to the Hawaii County General Plan,10 fuel tax and vehicular taxes collected in the county are deposited into the Highway fund for maintenance of County roads. As a result, credit for the future contribution of development to these funds is not necessary since the fund is used exclusively for the maintenance of County roads. Federal aid is generally provided for the maintenance, improvement and construction of Federal -aid County highways. The County allocates 50 percent of the fuel tax to supplement the maintenance of Federal -aid County highways, and the balance of the fuel tax is used to maintain the non -Federal -aid local roads. In addition to maintenance funding, the County receives Federal and State aid for capacity -enhancing projects. Based on a review of the 2006 to 2008 Stateunde Transportation Improvement Pmgram (TIP), it is anticipated that $61.5 million in Federal funds and $6.3 million in State funds will be available to pay for capacity related improvement programs on major roads in Hawaii County over the next three years. The current list of Federal- and State -funded eligible improvements from the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation TIP is shown in Table 22. "Hawaii County General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study, Ch. 3.3.5, 2004 HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 44 Table 22 PLANNFn ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDING, 2006-2008 Source: Hawai'i Department of Transportation. Statewide Transportation tmprovemenr rrogram, rr 2006 Iu r. wvo, cvuu. Dividing the capacity -related share of anticipated annual Federal and State funding by existing travel on the major roadway system yields the annual Federal and State capacity funding per VMT. Multiplying that figure by the appropriate net present value provides the equivalent current value of the future stream of funding over the next 20 years, a period that roughly corresponds to the life of roadway improvements. The result is a Federal and State funding credit of $151 per VMT for County roads and $78 per VMT for all roads, as shown in Table 23. Table 23 CTATF AND FEDERAL ROAD FUNDING CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT ... Federal Capacity Improvement Funding, FY 2006 to FY 2008 $34,440,000 Funding FederalState Funding Project Hawai'i Belt Rd Segment Limits Waimea Bypass Improvement New Road $0 $1,200,000 Konoelehua Ave (Design) Kamehameha to Puinako Widen $70,000 $280,000 Kealakehe Parkway Keanalehu Dr to Kealakaa Road Extension $100,000 $1,200,000 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Kealakehe Pkwy to Keahole Widen $6,000,000 $24,000,000 Volcano Road Kulani Rd Intersection Intersection $100,000 $400,000 Subtotal, State Roads $6,270,000 $27,080,000 Puainako Street Komohana to Kawili Widen $0 $4,000,000 Saddle Road n/a Road Extension $0 $2,400,000 Alii Hwy, Phase 1 Kamehameha III Rd to Kuakini Widen $0 $24,000,000 Kuakini Hwy Hualalai Rd to Alii Hwy Widen $0 $40,000 Palani-Kealakaa Intersection n/a Intersection $0 $4,000,000 Subtotal, County Roads $0 $34,440,000 Totals $6,270,000 $61,520,000 Source: Hawai'i Department of Transportation. Statewide Transportation tmprovemenr rrogram, rr 2006 Iu r. wvo, cvuu. Dividing the capacity -related share of anticipated annual Federal and State funding by existing travel on the major roadway system yields the annual Federal and State capacity funding per VMT. Multiplying that figure by the appropriate net present value provides the equivalent current value of the future stream of funding over the next 20 years, a period that roughly corresponds to the life of roadway improvements. The result is a Federal and State funding credit of $151 per VMT for County roads and $78 per VMT for all roads, as shown in Table 23. Table 23 CTATF AND FEDERAL ROAD FUNDING CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT Source: Federal and State funding from Table 22; existing VMT from Table 13; discount rate for net present value factor is based on average rate on 20 -year, tax exempt AAA municipal bonds reported by fmsbonds.com on January. 18, 2006. The thoroughfare facility fees must also take into consideration that new development will be generating future revenues that will be used to retire outstanding debt for past capacity -related roadway improvements. An analysis of GO debt is provided in Appendix B. This analysis assumes that all the `ow HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 45 RoadsCounty ... Federal Capacity Improvement Funding, FY 2006 to FY 2008 $34,440,000 $61,520,00 State Capacity Improvement Funding, FY 2006 to FY 2008 $0 $6,270,000 Total State and Federal Funding $34,440,000 $67,790,000 Total Years in Transportation Plan 3 3 Annual Funding $11,480,000 $20,506,667 Daily VMT on Major Roadway System 1,013,397 3,502,681 Annual Capacity Funding per VMT $11.33 $5.85 Present Value Factor (20 ears at 4.25%) 13.29 13.29 Federal and State Funding Credit per VMT 151 78 Source: Federal and State funding from Table 22; existing VMT from Table 13; discount rate for net present value factor is based on average rate on 20 -year, tax exempt AAA municipal bonds reported by fmsbonds.com on January. 18, 2006. The thoroughfare facility fees must also take into consideration that new development will be generating future revenues that will be used to retire outstanding debt for past capacity -related roadway improvements. An analysis of GO debt is provided in Appendix B. This analysis assumes that all the `ow HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 45 outstanding road -related debt was issued for capacity -enhancing projects. As shown in Table 24, total outstanding road -related debt is $68.8 trillion. A simple method that ensures that new development is not required to pay for existing facilities, through property tax or other funds used for debt retirement, as well as new facilities, through impact fees, is to subtract the outstanding debt from the replacement cost of existing road facilities. Essentially, this defines the existing level of service that new development is required to maintain as the equity value of the existing road system. While it may be somewhat difficult to quantify the replacement value of the existing thoroughfare system, the same result is obtained by dividing the outstanding debt by existing service units. The County's road -related debt credit is $68 per service unit when prorated over travel on County roads, and $20 per service unit when based on all major road travel, as shown in Table 24. Table 24 Total Outstanding Road Related Debt Principal Attributable Outstanding Road Debt Principal $68,846,141 $68,846,141 $68,846,141 $68,846,1 Source. Total outstanding debt from Appendix B. Table 97: percent attributable to capacity assumed: existing VMT from Table 13. Prior to development, the owners of a vacant parcel of land paid property taxes that may have been used, in part, to construct capital facilities of the type for which impact fees are being assessed. State law requires the provision of an additional credit in order to reduce impact fees by the value of property tax payments over the last five years that were used to construct existing capital facilities of the type for which the fees are being charged. Pursuant to State law, this credit must represent the present value of the past five years of property taxes paid by vacant land for capital facilities funded through the general fund. Based on a review of the County' s CIP status report, nearly all of the County's road capacity improvements over the past five years have been funded through Federal and State funds and County GO bonds with maintenance and operations funded through the County's Highway Fund. Since newly - developing properties were undeveloped in the past, they did not generate any revenue for the highway fund or any other type of general fund revenues except for property taxes. As a result, a credit is necessary to account for the portion of property taxes from vacant and agricultural land that has been utilized over the past five years to pay principal and interest for outstanding road -related debt. In the absence of a detailed principal and interest schedule for road -related debt, the 2005 debt payment is assumed to be the same for all five years. As shown in the table below, the estimated annual principal and interest payments on the current outstanding debt for roads over the past five years was $31.4 million. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 46 N S.r Table 25 ROAD GENERAL Annual GO Bond Debt Service $24,921, Roads Share of Total Outstanding Debt 25. Annual Road Debt Service $6,280, Total General Fund Capacity Funding, 2000-zuub 'bit,4uu,oa Source: Annual debt service based on 2004-05 debt service from Hawai I County, 2005-06Annua/ Operating Budget, June 2006; road share of debt from Table 96. An analysis of budgetary and tax data indicates thatvacant and agricultural properties within the County generate 32.5 percent of property tax revenues, and property taxes accounted for 66.5 percent of general fund revenues. Using these percentages, the credit for past property tax payments is $1 per VMT if only County roads are considered, or $3 per VMT if the road impact fees are based on travel on all major roads, as shown in Table 26. Table 26 ROAD PROPERTY TAX CREDIT Source: Percent of general fund from property taxes from Hawaii County, 2005-06 Annual Operating Budget, June 2006; percent of property taxes from undeveloped/agricultural land from Hawaii County Real Property Tax Administrator, June 1, 2006; general fund capacity funding from preceding table; replacement cost is product of existing VMC from Table 94 in Appendix A and cost per VMC; cost per VMT (assumed same as cost per VMC) from Table 21. Reducing the cost per service unit by the road debt credit, past property tax payments and the anticipated annual Federal/State funding per service unit leaves a net cost of about $461 per VMT for county roads and about $584 per VMT for all roads to replace capacity directly consumed by new development, as summarized in Table 27. HAWAII COUNTYIINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 47 Roads All Major RoadsCounty Percent of General Fund from Property Taxes, FY 2005-06 66.5% 66.5% Percent of Property Taxes from Vacant/Ag. Land, 2006 32.5% 32.5% Percent of General Fund from Vacant/Ag. Land 21.6% 21.6% Total General Fund Capacity Funding, 2000-2005 $31,400,634 $31,400,63 Vacant/Ag. Land Share of Past Capital Cost $6,786,462 $6,783,544 Replacement Cost of Existing Road S stem $1,547,343,330 $5,285,579,91 Percent of Existing Cost Paid by Vacant/Ag. Land, 2000-2005 0.4% 0.1% Road Cost per VMT $683 $683 Past Property Tax Credit per VMT 3 $1, Source: Percent of general fund from property taxes from Hawaii County, 2005-06 Annual Operating Budget, June 2006; percent of property taxes from undeveloped/agricultural land from Hawaii County Real Property Tax Administrator, June 1, 2006; general fund capacity funding from preceding table; replacement cost is product of existing VMC from Table 94 in Appendix A and cost per VMC; cost per VMT (assumed same as cost per VMC) from Table 21. Reducing the cost per service unit by the road debt credit, past property tax payments and the anticipated annual Federal/State funding per service unit leaves a net cost of about $461 per VMT for county roads and about $584 per VMT for all roads to replace capacity directly consumed by new development, as summarized in Table 27. HAWAII COUNTYIINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 47 Table 27 ic Cost per Vehicle -Mile of Travel (VMT) $683 $683 Federal/State Funding Credit per VMT $151 $78 Debt Service Credit per VMT $68 $20 Prooertv Tax Credit $3 $1 Source: Cost per VMT from Table 21; Federal/State funding credit from Table 23; debt service credit from Table 24; property tax credit from Table 26. Maximum Fee Schedule Using the formula and the inputs calculated in this section of the impact fee report, the maximum potential road impact fees per unit of development for various land uses are shown in Table 28. The fee schedule provides the option of charging single-family detached development based on a flat rate per unit or on a variable schedule depending on the size of the dwelling unit. The fee schedule provides the option of implementing the road impact fee based on major county roads or both State and county major roads. In addition, impact fees could be adopted at less than 100 percent of the level shown in the net cost schedule, provided that the reduction is applied uniformly across all land use categories in order to retain the proportionality of the fees. HAWAII COUNTWNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 48 C Table 28 NET COST S Less than 1,000 sq. ft. 210 Dwelling 9.09 $461 $4,190 31.81 $584 $18,57 1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft. 210 Dwelling 10.32 $461 $4,758 36.11 $584 $21,08£ 1,499 - 1,999 sq. ft. 210 Dwelling 10.80 $461 $4,979 37.81 $584 $22,08' 2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft. 210 Dwelling 11.35 $461 $5,232 39.73 $584 $23,20: 3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft. 210 Dwelling 11.89 $461 $5,481 41.62 $584 $24,301 4,000 sq ft or more 210 Dwelling 12.31 $461 $5,675 _43.09 $584 $25,16 Single -Family (flat rate) 210 Dwelling 10.32 $461 $4,758 36.11 $584 $21,08' Multi -Family 220 Dwelling 7.24 $461 $3,338 25.33 $584 $14,79 Hotel/Motel 310/320 Room 10.34 $461 $4,767 36.20 $584 $21,14 Retail/Commercial 820 1000 sq. ft. 17.60 $461 $8,114 61.59 $584 $35,96 Office 710 1000 sq. ft. 13.42 $461 $6,187 46.97 $584 $27,43 Industrial Park 130 1000 sq, ft. 8.48 $461 $3,909 29.69 $584 $17,33 Warehouse 150 1000 sq. ft. 4.96 $461 $2,287 17.16 $584 $10,02 Church/Synagogue 560 1000 sq. ft. 6.77 $461 $3,121 23.69 $584 $13, Elementary/Sec. School 520/530 1000 sq. ft. 2.46 $461 $1,134 8.62 $584 $5,1 Hospital 610 1000 sq. ft. 21.42 $461 $9,875 74.96 $584 $43, Nursing Home 620 1000 sq. ft. 6.03 $461 $2,780 21.12 $584 $12, Other Institutional 710 1000 sq ft 13.42 $461 $6,187 46.97 $584 $27, Source: Net cost per VMT from Table 27; daily VMT from Table 17 Capital Improvement Plan Funding of $90.5 million is proposed for transportation infrastructure improvements in the County's 2005-06 to 2010-2011 capital improvements program (CIP). Impact fees may only be used for capacity - expanding improvements to the major roadway system. A detailed breakdown of each project component cost was not available; consequently, the identification of eligible projects is preliminary and subject to verification. It is estimated that eligible improvements account for $87.4 million of the total CIP costs. The current list of eligible improvements from the six-year CIP is shown in Table 29. No improvements are currently planned specifically for the proposed 4-Puna/Ka`u benefit district. Some impact fee -eligible improvements should be identified for this benefit districts prior to the adoption of a road impact fee. HAWAII CouNTYAINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 49 Table 29 ROAD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Source: County of Hawaii, Capital Budget and Six Year Capital Improvements Program, June 2006. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 50 0 Proposed Project Judicial District Benefit District Total Cost Impact Fee Eligible Connector Kohala 1-N/S Kohala no est. no est. Kalopa Sand Gulch Bypass Road Hamakua 2-Hilo/Hamakua $2,500,000 $2,500,000 Waianuenue Ave Improvements S. Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $8,675,000 $8,675,000 Hilo Roads Guardrail 8 Retaining Walls (FHWA) S. Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $600,000 $0 Kamehameha Avenue Resurfacing (FHWA) S. Hilo 2-Hila/Hamakua $1,000,000 $0 Kuakini Highway Improvements (FHWA) S. Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Kawailani/Pohakulani/Ainaola/lwaIan i Intersect. S. Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $4,886,000 $4,886,000 N./ S. Mamalahoa Highway Improvements (FHWA) Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $528,000 $528,000 Mohouli Street Improvement (FHWA) S. Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $1,575,000 $1,575,000 Lau ahoehoe Gulch Access Road Improvements N. Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $100,000 $0 Plani-Kealakaa Intersection (FHWA) N. Kona 4-N/S Kona $1,316,000 $1,316,000 Alii Drive Improvements (FHWA) N. Kona 4-N/S Kona $800,000 $800,000 Kahului-Keauhou Parkway (FHWA) N. Kana 4-N/S Kona $15,830,000 $15,830,000 Alii Highway N. Kona 4-N/S Kona $49,321,000 $49,321,00 Bridge Inspection 8 Apprisals Various $60,000 $0 Land Acquisition for PW Facilities Various $450,000 $450,000 East Hawai'i Drainage Improvements Various $700,000 $0 West Hawaii Drainage Improvements Various $700,000 $0 Total $90,541,000 $87,381,000 Source: County of Hawaii, Capital Budget and Six Year Capital Improvements Program, June 2006. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 50 0 N CHAPTER 8: PARKS AND RECREATION Recreational facilities can be generally classified as resource-based or facility -based. Most resource- based parks on the island are provided by the Federal and State governments (231,400 and 800 acres respectively), with the County primarily providing resource-based parks along the coast in beach parks (260 acres). The County provides a variety of facility -based parks, ranging from small neighborhood parks that serve relatively smallgeographic areas, district parks that serve an entire district, and larger regional parks with a county -wide scope. The location of existing parks and recreation facilities is graphically illustrated in Figure 6, and the inventory of parks and park facilities is shown in Table 106 of Appendix E. This study bases the proposed park impact fees on the existing level of service, and measures that level of service in terms of the ratio of the replacement value of existing facilities to existing residential development expressed in service units. 1a KALI MAI., Figure 6 EXISTING COUNTY PARKS HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 51 Assessment and Benefit Districts The concept of assessment and benefit districts was described in the Policy Issues section. Assessment districts are geographic areas subject to a single fee schedule. Assessment districts may be divided into multiple benefit districts, which are areas where fees collected are earmarked to be spent. While construction and land cost data are likely to vary between urban and rural locations and different parts of the County, sufficient cost data are not available by district that would provide a legal basis for calculating separate fees for each benefit district. Consequently, a single county -wide assessment district is recommended for calculating park and recreation impact fees, which provides a uniform park impact fee schedule throughout the county. However, it is further recommended that the County create several benefit districts for park impact fees. The County currently restricts the expenditure of fair share contributions to the judicial district in which they were collected. The nine judicial districts have been aggregated into the proposed four park benefit districts (see Figure 2 on page 18). To facilitate projects with wider benefit, such as regional parks, it is recommended that the County allow up to 20 percent of the park impact fee collected in a district to be used for projects outside the district, provided that significant benefit can be shown to the district in which the fees were collected. Service Unit While most impact fees are assessed on all uses, park impact fees are usually assessed only on residential uses. This is because a park nexus is generally easier to establish for residential uses than for ..� nonresidential. Some jurisdictions, however, do assess park fees on non-residential uses. jurisdictions that charge non-residential uses for park impact fees are generally less populated central cities within major metropolitan areas with a high day -time, or functional population, than night-time, or residential population since the added influx of daytime population places extra demand and strain on park facilities and services, such as parks. Similarly, communities such as Hawaii County, with a significant tourist population, assess park impact fees for hotel/motel accommodations since the users of those units also benefit from the community's parks and recreational facilities. Disparate types of development must be translated into a common unit of measurement that reflects the impact of new development on the demand for park facilities. This unit of measurement is called a "service unit." Population is the most common service unit used in park impact fee analysis. Since the level of service for park facilities is measured in terms of population, demand for park facilities is proportional to the number of people in a dwelling unit or hotel room. Consequently, data on average household size for various types of units is a critical component of a park impact fee. These data are presented and analyzed in Appendix C. Population estimates are based on three factors: the number of dwelling units, average household sizes for various types of units and occupancy rates. The number of dwelling units can be estimated with some degree of precision, and average household size has been declining somewhat predictably but has been stabilizing in recent years. Occupancy rates, on the other hand, tend to vary significantly over time, and not in predictable directions. Consequently, this report recommends the use of a service unit that avoids the need to make assumptions about occupancy rates. This service unitis the "equivalent dwelling unit" or EDU, which HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 62 represents the impact of a typical single-family dwelling. By definition, a typical single-family unit represents, on average, one EDU. Other types of units each represent a fraction of an EDU, based on their relative average household sizes. The EDUs associated with each housing type and unit size category are shown in Table 30. Table 30 PARK EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT MULTIPLIERS Less than 1,000 sq. ft. 2.78 0.97 1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft. 2.95 1.03 1,500 - 1,999 sq. ft. 3.06 1.07 2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft. 3.23 1.13 3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft. 3.45 1.20 Single -Family Detached Average 2.87 1.00 Multi -Family 2.26 0.79 Source: Average household size for single-family average and multi -family units from Table 99 in Appendix C; average household sizes by size categories from Table 100 in Appendix C; average occupancy far hotel/motel rooms estimated to be one-half of average vehicle occupancy on vacation trips, as reported by U.S. Dept. of Transportation, National Household Travel Survey, 2001; EDUs/unit is ratio of average household size to single-family detached average household size. In order to determine the existing level of service, it is necessary to estimate the total number of EDUs in the county. This is accomplished by multiplying the number of existing residential units by the EDUs per unit calculated above based on relative average household sizes. As shown in Table 31, there are 77,264 park service units (EDUs) in Hawaii County. Table 31 PARK SEF Single -Family Detached 58,772 1.00 58,772 Multi -Family 17,153 0.79 13,551 Hotel/Motel 10,513 0.47 4,941 Total Park EDUs 77,264 Source: Existing units from Table 98 in Appendix C; EDUs per unit from Table 30; hotel/motel units from Table 7. Cost Per Service Unit As noted earlier, this study bases the park and recreation impact fee on the existing level of service, and measures that level of service in terms of the ratio of the replacement value of existing facilities to existing residential development expressed in equivalent dwelling units. A full inventory of Hawaii County's parks and specialized recreational facilities is shown in Table 106 and Table 107, respectively HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 53 ofAppendix E. As shown in Appendix E, Hawaii County's existing open space sites total 1,898.4 acres, with 991.6 acres of developed parkland. The previous 1990 impact fee study utilized agriculture land value per acre in the County for determining the replacement value for park acreage. Agricultural land value provides a reasonable proxy for parks that are located in rural inland locations; however, it does not accurately reflect the value of parkland located in urban or shoreline areas where land costs are higher. County acquisitions for parks have been infrequent in recent years and do not provide a good basis for determining current average park land costs. An alternative approach was to analyze the cost of residential land offered for sale based on an analysis of 2,147 parcels of residential land were offered for sale in Hawaii County and were posted on the web site of the National Association of Realtors. Costs per acre vary considerably by size and location, but location is more difficult to quantify, so only variation by parcel size is used. Applying the average cost per acre for residential property based on current asking prices by existing park acreage in each parcel size category yields a reasonable estimate of current park land replacement costs of $72.6 million, as shown in Table 32. These costs are for land only, and do not include site development costs. Development costs for park land includes the cost of site preparation such as clearing and grading, installation of security lighting, landscaping and utilities. Site development costs per acre for Hawaii County's existing developed parks are unavailable and will not be considered in determining the impact fee. Table 32 PARK LAND REPLACEMENT COST W Less than 1 acre $135,789,442 249.20 $544,901 8.5 $4,648,( 1 to 4.99 acres $199,922,960 1,879.57 $106,366 178.3 $18,963,E 5 to 9.99 acres $36,188,600 433.60 $83,461 163.3 $13,625,( 10 to 19.99 acres $40,924,900 643.49 $63,598 169.7 $10,793,£ 20 to 49.99 acres $56,181,500 1,646.62 $34,119 348.3 $11,883,E 50 to 99.99 acres $16,549,000 1,263.75 $13,095 521.7 $6,831,1 100 to 499.99 acres $22,055,000 1,906.56 $11,568 508.7 $5,884,2 Source: Hawaii County real estate data is all residential properties offered for sale on www.realtorxom on June 6, 2006: existing park acres from Table 106 of Appendix E. The County has invested in the construction of park and recreation facilities, ranging from playgrounds and picnic pavilions to community centers. The sum of current standard replacement costs for existing County recreation facilities total about $440.7 million, as shown in Table 33. HAWAII COUNTYNINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 54 �r..Facility Table 33 STANDARD PARK FACILITY REPLACEMENT COSTS Type Units Unit Cost Tote Gymnasium 19 $6,000,000 $114,01 Gymnasium w/ Community Mtg Rm 3 $7,500,000 $22,51 Community Center 17 $4,500,000 $76,5' Senior Center 9 $2,500,000 $22,51 Pavilion 80 $200,000 $16,0 Swimming Pool (25M) 6 $6,000,000 $36,0 Swimming Pool (50M) 3 $10,000,000 $30,0 Restroom 78 $350,000 $27,3 Picnic Area 33 $200,000 $6,6 Playground Equipment 25 $250,000 $6,2 Baseball Field 66 $850,000 $56,1 Soccer/Football Field 24 $400,000 $9,6 Basketball Court 29 $150,000 $4,3 Volleyball Court 7 $150,000 $1,0 Tennis Court 26 $125,000 $3,2 Lighted Tennis Court 21 $150,000 $3,1 Skateboard Park 2 $250,000 $6 Boat Launch 5 $1,000,000 $5,( Total Standard Facility Costs 4,44U,OOU,000 Source: Units from Table 106 in Appendix E with breakdown of pools by size provided by Hawai'i County Department of Parks and Recreation, July 25, 2006.: unit costs based on review of Hawai'i County facilities inventory original construction costs adjusted by ENR CCI (January 2006) and Hawai'i County Department of Parks and Recreation, April 11 and July 25, 2006. The County's Parks and Recreation Department provides residents with additional recreational facilities for which standardized pricing is not applicable. The following table shows replacement values for non - standardized facilities such as golf courses, civic centers, arenas and unique recreational facilities. These estimates are based on original costs from the County's fixed asset listings, adjusted by a construction cost inflation factor. The estimated total value of these facilities is $25.0 million, as shown in Table 34. Table 34 SPECIAL PARK STRUCTURES AND Special Facilities Golf Course Facilities $14,594,261 $2,283,847 $8.110.740 Source: Facility replacement value from non-standard facility adjusted cost in Table 107 in Appendix E. Dividing the total replacement cost of existing park land and capital improvements by the number of existing park service units (or EDUs) yields the cost per EDU to maintain the existing level of service, as summarized in Table 35. The cost per service unit to maintain the current level of service is $6,967 per EDU. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 55 Table 35 PARK COST PER SERVICE UNIT Total Park Land Cost Total Park Facility Cost Total Park Costs Units Source: Park land cost from Table 32; total facility cost from Table 33; total special facility cost from Table 34; EDUs from Table 31. Net Cost Per Service Unit Some of the cost to provide new residents with park facilities will be paid by the new residents themselves through future payments that will be used to retire outstanding debt, and past payments paid through property taxes levied on the vacant land prior to development. In addition, some of the capital costs to serve growth will be paid by outside funding sources. Consequently, the cost per service unit is reduced to take account of these factors, and the result is referred to as the net cost. Based on a review of the County's CIP status report, the County's primary funding source for major park capital improvements over the past five years has been general obligation bond issues. An analysis of past bond issues shown in Table 97 of Appendix B indicates that currently the County's outstanding debt related to parks is $25.4 million. A simple method that ensures that new development is not required to pay for existing facilities, through property tax or other funds used for debt retirement, as well as new facilities, through impact fees, is to subtract the outstanding debt from the replacement cost of existing park facilities. Essentially, this defines the existing level of service that new development is required to maintain as the equity value of the existing park system. The same result is obtained by dividing the outstanding debt by existing service units. As shown in Table 36, the County's current park -related debt results in a credit of $329 for every park service unit in Hawaii County. Table 36 EDIT PER Total Outstanding Debt Principal Source: Total outstanding debt from Appendix S, Table 97; total park EDUs from Table 31. State law requires an additional credit in order to account for the portion of past property taxes from vacant land that have paid for capital facilities over the previous five years. This additional credit represents the value of the past five years of property taxes paid by vacant land for capital facilities funded through the general fund. HAWAII COUNMINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 56 Based on a review of the County's CIP status report, two capacity -expanding projects for parks were funded directly from the general fund apptopriations over the last five years. As shown in Table 37, direct general fund expenditures for new park facilities were $147,500. Table 37 DIRECT PARK GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, 2001-2005 Keaau Park Improvements $110,000 Source. Hawaii County, Capital Improvement Project Status Report, June 2005. Most other capacity -expanding park projects were funded through the County's GO bonds. As shown in the table below, the estimated annual principal and interest payments on the current outstanding debt for parks over the past five years was $13.0 million. Total general fund capacity expenditures were $13.1 million. Table 38 GENERAL Annual GO Bond Debt Service $24,921,138 Park Share of Total Outstanding Debt 10.4% Annual Park Debt Service $2,591,798 - Years 5 Total Debt -Related Capacity Funding, 2000-2005 $12,958,992 Direct General Fund Expenditures, 2000-2005 $147,50( Total General Fund Expenditures, 2000-2005 $13,106,492 Source: Annual debt service based on 2004-05 debt servicefrom Hawaii County, 2005-06Annual Operating Budget, June 2006; park share of debt from Table 96; direct general fund expenditures from Table 37. M An analysis of budgetary and tax data indicates that vacant and agricultural properties within the County generate 32.5 percent of property tax revenues, and property taxes accounted for 66.5 percent of general fund revenues. Using these percentages, the credit for past property tax payments is $35 per EDU, as shown in Table 39. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 57 Table 39 PARK PROPERTY TAX CREDIT Percent of General Fund from Property Taxes, FY 2005-06 66.5% Percent of Property Taxes from Vacant/Ag. Land, 2006 32.5% Percent of Credit for Past Property Tax Payments 21.6% Total General Fund Capacity Funding, 2000-2005 $13,106,492 Net Vacant/Ag. Land Share of Past Capital Cost $2,831,423 Total Existing Park Replacement Value $538,268,790 Percent Paid by Vacant Land in Last Five Years 0.5% Park Cost per EDU $6,967 Past Property Tax Credit per EDU 35 Source: Percent of general fund from property taxes from Hawaii County, 2005-06Annual Operating Budget, June 2006; percent of property taxes from undeveloped/agricultural land from Hawaii County Real Property Tax Administrator, June 1, 2006; park general fund capacity funding from the preceding table; total existing park replacement value and park cost per EDU from Table 31. Another factor that is often considered in determining park impact fees is the degree to which outside funding has been used to cover a portion of the recreational facility costs. While there is no guarantee that the past level of funding will be indicative of future outside funding support, to be conservative, the cost per service unit will be reduced to account for the likelihood that some growth -related park costs can be paid for with Federal and State grants. Over the last five years, the County has received an average of $216,900 annually in Federal grants for capital improvement to park facilities, as summarized in Table 40. Table 40 PARK GRANT FUNDIh Reeds Bay Beach Park Isaac Hale Beach Park Expansion and Improvement Waimea Trails and Greenways Total Grant Funding 2000-2005 2000-2005 Federal $250,000 Federal $520,824 Federal $313,700 $1,084,524 Source, Hawaii County Capital Improvement Project Status Report, June 2005; Parks Department. It may be reasonable to assume that the grant funding received per park service unit in the past will continue in the future. Dividing the average annual grant funding by existing service units yields annual funding per service unit. Multiplying that by the present value factor results in the current lump sum amount that is the equivalent of the future stream of outside funding that the County may receive over the next 20 years to help fund park improvements. Based on these assumptions, the appropriate credit for potential grant funding for parks is $37 for each new single-family home, or park service unit equivalent, as shown in Table 41. HAWAVI COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 58 0 N ..1 M Table 41 PARK GRANT FUNDING CREDIT Average Annual Grant Funding Fxistina Park EDUs. 2005 Annual Funding per EDU $2.81 Source: Average annual grant funding from Table 40; existing park EDUs from Table 31; discount rate for present value factor from Table 23. As shown in Table 42, reducing the cost per service unit by the debt credit and anticipated grant funding per service unit leaves a net cost of $6,566 per EDU to maintain the existing level of service. Table 42 PARK NET COST PER SERVICE Total Park Replacement Cost per EDU $6,967 Debt Credit per EDU $329 Past Property Tax Credit per EDU $35 Grant Funding Credit per EDU $37 Net Park Cost per EDU $6,566 Source: Total park replacement cost per EDU from Table 35; debt credit per EDU from Table 36; past property tax credit per EDU from Table 39; grant funding credit per EDU from Table 41. HAWAPI COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 59 Maximum Fee Schedule Given the data, methodology and assumptions in this analysis, the maximum fees that can be adopted by Hawaii County are derived by multiplying the number of equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) represented by each dwelling unit type and hotel/motel room by the net cost per EDU, as shown in Table 43. The County has the option of charging single-family homes a flat rate per unit or a variable rate based on dwelling unit size. Table 43 PARK NET COST SCHEDULE Multi -Family 0.79 $6,566 $5,187 Source: EDUs per unit from Table 30; net cost per EDU from Table 42. The County's Park Dedication Code (Chapter 8, Hawaii County Code) imposes a requirement for the dedication of five acres of park land for every 1,000 persons or payment of fees in -lieu of dedication. These requirements apply to the subdivision of land for residential purposes or the development of multi -family units. If this dedication requirement is maintained, credit against the park impact fees will need to be provided for the value of land required to be dedicated since the impact fee calculation includes land costs. Capital Improvement Plan Funding of $140.4 million is proposed for park and recreation infrastructure improvements in the County's 2005-06 to 2010-2011 capital improvements program (CIP). Impact fees may only be used for capacity -expanding improvements such as new parks and facilities or enhancements that add amenities or facilities to existing parks. A detailed breakdown of each project component cost was not available; consequently, the identification of eligible projects is preliminary and subject to verification. Eligible improvements account for $60.1 million of the total CIP costs. The current list of eligible improvements from the six-year CIP is shown in Table 44. Impact fee -eligible projects are currently planned for all of the proposed benefit districts. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 60 .Iflet Cos' Land Use Unit EDU Unit Less than 1,000 sq. ft. 0.97 $6,566 $6,369 1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft. 1.03 $6,566 $6,763 1,499 - 1,999 sq. ft. 1.07 $6,566 $7,026 2,000 -2,999 sq. ft. 1.13 $6,566 $7,420 3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft. 1.20 $6,566 $7,879 4,000 sq. ft or more 1.28 $6,566 $8,404 Single -Family (flat rate) 1.00 $6,566 $6,566 Multi -Family 0.79 $6,566 $5,187 Source: EDUs per unit from Table 30; net cost per EDU from Table 42. The County's Park Dedication Code (Chapter 8, Hawaii County Code) imposes a requirement for the dedication of five acres of park land for every 1,000 persons or payment of fees in -lieu of dedication. These requirements apply to the subdivision of land for residential purposes or the development of multi -family units. If this dedication requirement is maintained, credit against the park impact fees will need to be provided for the value of land required to be dedicated since the impact fee calculation includes land costs. Capital Improvement Plan Funding of $140.4 million is proposed for park and recreation infrastructure improvements in the County's 2005-06 to 2010-2011 capital improvements program (CIP). Impact fees may only be used for capacity -expanding improvements such as new parks and facilities or enhancements that add amenities or facilities to existing parks. A detailed breakdown of each project component cost was not available; consequently, the identification of eligible projects is preliminary and subject to verification. Eligible improvements account for $60.1 million of the total CIP costs. The current list of eligible improvements from the six-year CIP is shown in Table 44. Impact fee -eligible projects are currently planned for all of the proposed benefit districts. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 60 Table 44 CSource: County of Hawaii, Capital Budget and Six Year Capital Improvements Program, June 2005. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 61 Spencer Beach Park Improvements S. Kohala 1-Kohala $500,000 $0 Kamehameha Park Grandstand Restoration N. Kohala 1-Kohala $500,000 $0 Waimea Regional Park Development S. Kohala 1-Kohala $11,150,000 $11,150,000 Waimea Trails and Greenways S. Kohala 1-Kohala $2,300,000 $2,300,000 Kohala Pool Improvements N. Kohala 1-Kohala $250,000 $0 Mahukona Beach Park Improvements N. Kohala 1-Kohala $500,000 $0 Hakalau Gym Structure Repairs and Improvements Hamakua 2-Hilo/Hamakua $250,000 $0 Honokaa Park Track 8 Sports Fields Improvements Hamakua 2-Hilo/Hamakua $50,000 $0 Reed's Bay Area Parks Restoration Ft Improvements S. Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $1,000,000 $1,000,000 S. Hilo Baseyard Improvements 8 Modifications S. Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $500,000 $0 Lehia Beach Park Development S. Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $1,250,000 $1,250,000 Honolii Beach Park Master Plan S. Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $1,150,000 $1,150,000 Hilo Municipal Golf Course Improvements S. Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $1,750,000 $0 New Waiakea Recreation Center Facility S. Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $5,250,000 $0 Hilo Bayfront Beach Park Master Plan S. Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $2,250,000 $2,250,000 Alae Cemetary Expansion and Improvements S. Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $337,000 $0 Pana'ewa Equestrian Center Improvements S. Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $350,000 $0 Kahuku Park Improvements S. Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $500,000 $0 Leleiwi Beach Park Improvements S. Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $500,000 $0 Pana'ewa Rainforest Zoo Improvements S. Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $500,000 $0 New Puna Gym It Park Development Puna 3-Puna/Ka'u $8,250,000 $8,250,000 Ahalanui/Pohoiki Bay Beach Parks Puna 3-Puna/Ka'u $7,079,000 $7,079,000 New HOVE Senior/Community Center Facility Ka'u 3-Puna/Ka'u $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Hookena Beach Park Road Improvements S. Kona 4-N/S Kona $250,000 $0 Konawaena Swimming Pool Improvements S. Kona 4-N/S Kona $1,250,000 $0 Alii Kai Subdivision New Park Development N. Kona 4-N/S Kona $1,322,000 $1,322,000 Kailua Park Improvements N. Kona 4-N/S Kona $2,500,000 $0 Kailua -Kona Senior Center N. Kona 4-N/S Kona $4,500,000 $4,500,000 La'aloa Bay Beach Park/Magic Sands Beach N. Kona 4-N/S Kona $2,078,000 $2,078,000 West Hawai'I Regional Complex Development NA $15,000,000 $15,000,000 Laupahoehoe Point Park Improvements NA $500,000 $0 Laupahoehoe Pool Improvements NA $250,000 $0 Punalu'u Beach Park Improvements NA $500,000 $0 ADA Compliance Various $47,566,000 $0 Repairs/Improvements to Facilities Various $9,500,000 $0 DWS Water Connection Compliance Various $450,000 $0 Removal and/or Replacement of Hazardous Facilities Various $1,000,000 $0 Play Equipment Upgrade & Improvements Various $4,000,000 $0 Wastewater Disposal Systems Upgrade Various $660,000 $0 Lifeguard Towers/Stands Upgrades Various $200,000 $0 New Comfort Stations @ Various Parks Various $1,250,000 $1,250,000 Total $140,442,00 $60,079,000 CSource: County of Hawaii, Capital Budget and Six Year Capital Improvements Program, June 2005. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 61 this page intentionally left blank HAWAII CAUNTYMNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 62 CHAPTER 9: FIRE/EMS e The Hawaii County Fire Department provides fire and emergency medical service (EMS) response throughout the county. The County's existing fire station facilities are shown in Figure 7. The Fire Department headquarters are located in the County Building in Hilo and there are 14 regular fire stations, 18 volunteer fire stations and 2 Federal fire stations on the Big Island. The Kilauea Military Camp and Pohakuloa fire stations are Federal facilities. Kilauea Military Camp provides emergency medical services under an agreement with the County. The regular fire stations and three of the volunteer fire stations (Laupahoehoe, Pahala and Na`alehu) provide 24-hour fire suppression and emergency medical services. The Waiakea and Kailua-Kona stations provide rescue services, the Kautnana and South Kohala stations provide hazardous waste response and the South Kohala station provides au medical services. The General Plan establishes a desired standard of fire stations within five miles of concentrated settlement areas and first response emergency medical service within eight minutes of concentrated settlement areas. Figure 7 FIRE STATION LOCATIONS HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 63 Assessment and Benefit Districts Similar to the road and park impact fee calculation, using a single county -wide service area is recommended for calculating the fire/EMS impact fees. This will provide a uniform impact fee schedule through the county. While fire -fighting apparatus and ambulances are generally dispatched from a station to calls within that station's primary response area, these units may also respond to calls in neighboring response areas if needed. In addition, the headquarters and training facilities are centralized. Consequently, fire/EMS facilities constitute an interrelated system that provides service throughout the jurisdiction. For these reasons, most fire/EMS impact fees use a single jurisdiction -wide benefit district. However, based on discussions with County staff and the impact fee focus group consensus, the County fire/EMS impact fee benefit districts will follow the recommendation for benefit districts shown in Figure 2 (see page 18). As with the road and park benefit districts, the County could utilize up to 20 percent of all impact fee funds for county -wide projects such as improvements to central facilities or to improvements that provide benefit to more than one district. Service Unit Disparate types of development must be translated into a common unit of measurement that reflects the impact of new development on the demand for fire/rescue service. This common unit of measurement is referred to as a "service unit." Service units create the link between the supply of fire capital facilities and the demand for such facilities generated by new development. The two most common methodologies used in calculating fire/EMS impact fees are the "calls -fox - service" approach and the "functional population" approach. The calls -for -service approach uses historical data on emergency calls by land use type to make the connection between land use type and demand for fire facilities. However, since records based on the land use type where the call for service originates for fire calls are unavailable, an alternative approach was required. An alternative approach for estimating the public safety service demands of various land use types is known as "functional population." To a large extent, the demand for fire services is proportional to the presence of people. Functional population is analogous to the concept of "full-time equivalent" employees. It represents the number of "full-time equivalent" people present at the site of a land use, and it is used for the purpose of determining the impact of a particular development on the need for fire facilities. The calculations of functional population for various land use types are presented in the Appendix D. Cost per Service Unit Fixe/EMS impact fees are designed to charge new development the cost of providing the same level of service that is provided to existing development. The existing level of service for fire/EMS facilities is based on the replacement cost of existing facilities and equipment. The County owns facilities at 20 sites, including the Central Station. Some of the volunteer stations were built and are owned by the community in which they are located. For most stations, the County provides and owns the fixe -fighting and EMS apparatus and equipment. HAWAII COUNTYVNERASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 64 The replacement cost of existing fire/EMS facilities can be determined based on recent construction ` cost data. The cost of construction for the two most recently -built stations, adjusted to current dollars, averages $331 per square foot, as shown in Table 45. Table 45 FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION COST Keauhou 1997 4,460 $1,230,997 $1,618,761 $363 WAiknlna 1998 4,768 $1,102,187 $1,426,230 $299 Source: Recent construction project data from County of Hawaii Fire Department; cost adjusted to January 2006 using the change in the ENR Construction Cost Index (CCI) . The total value of existing fixe/EMS facilities is based on the existing facility size and land value. The value of the fixe/EMS facility land was based on market value data provided by the County. The combined replacement value of the existing fire department facilities, is estimated to be $30.93 million, as shown in Table 46. Table 46 EXISTING FIRE/EMS F1 Source: Building and land information from County of Hawai'i Fire Department; building cost based on cost per square foot from Table 45. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 65 1 Central 1.21 10,752 $495,601 $3,558,912 $4,054,51: 2 Waiakea 0.92 5,475 $300,681 $1,812,225 $2,112,90 ..... 3 Kawailani 0.58 3,700 $85,281 $1,224,700 $1,309,98 4 Kaumana 0.37 7,372 $89,581 $2,440,132 $2,529,71 5 Keaau 0.20 2,716 $142,715 $898,996 $1,041,71 6 Captain Cook 0.33 3,350 $142,781 $1,108,850 $1,251,63 7 Kailua-Kona 3.00 5,250 $221,082 $1,737,750 $1,958,83 8 Honokaa 0.13 2,016 $326,881 $667,296 $994,17 9 Waimea 0.68 8,250 $300,000 $2,730,750 $3,030,7E 10 Pahoa 0.41 2,700 $150,000 $893,700 $1,043,7C 11 Pahala 0.74 1,680 $135,881 $556,080 $691,96 11a a-Naalehu 0.14 1,026 $136,517 $339,606 $476,12 12 Keauhou 1.51 4,460 $227,464 $1,476,260 $1,703,72 14 S. Kohala 2.15 4,578 $126,790 $1,515,318 $1,642,1C 15 N. Kohala 1.25 1,800 $209,481 $595,800 $805,2£ 16 Waikoloa 3.00 4,768 $377,464 $1,578,208 $1,955,67 17 Laupahoehoe 1.53 1,600 $46,681 $529,600 $576,2E 18 Paradise Park 1.00 2,137 $65,900 $707,347 $773,21 19 Volcano 0.18 5,760 $100 $1,906,560 $1,906,6E 20 Ocean View 2.00 3,200 $12,900 $1,059,200 $1,072,1( Source: Building and land information from County of Hawai'i Fire Department; building cost based on cost per square foot from Table 45. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 65 The estimated replacement cost of the Fire Department's existing fire -fighting apparatus and other vehicles is summarized in Table 47. Table 47 EXISTING FIRE/EMS VEHICLE COST Fire Engine/Pumper 21 $650,000 $13,65 Tanker 15 $300,000 $4,5C Aerial Platforms 1 $850,000 $85 Ambulance 24 $150,000 $3,6C Mini Pumper 30 $150,000 $4,5C Light Rescue 2 $150,000 $3C Brush Truck 7 $150,000 $1,05 Utility Bus 1 $75,000 $7 Utility Fuel Truck 2 $55,000 $11 Trailer (Cargo) 2 $20,000 $4 Trailer (Boat) 2 $7,000 $1 Haz Mat Truck 2 $500,000 $1,OC Boat w/motor 2 $70,000 $14 Helicopter w/accessories 2 $1,750,000 $3,5C Source: Number of vehicles and replacement cost from Hawaii County Fire Department, March 24, 2006 e-mail. Replacement costs for the rest of the Fire Department's equipment were determined from the County's fixed asset listings. This was done by adjusting the original cost for inflation using the Consumer Price Index. The County's inventory of Fire Department equipment on the fixed asset listing includes equipment that can be classified as communications, emergency/fixe, office and other equipment. Based on the original cost, the replacement cost for fire/EMS equipment is $5,530,000, as shown in Table 48. Table 48 EXISTING FIRE/EMS EQUIPMENT COST Communications Equipment $1,340,771 $2. Emergency/Fire Equipment $2,045,423 $2 Office Equipment $417,910 9 Other $137.364 9 Source: Fixed asset listings from Hawaii County Fixed Asset Listing, October, 2005: replacement cost based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, U.S. City Average, All Items. All Urban Consumers (1982-84=100 and based on April 2006 = 201.5). HAWAII COUNTWNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 66 The cost per service unit based on the existing level of service can be determined by dividing the replacement cost of existing fixe/EMS facilities by the existing number of public safety service units. ��✓ As shown in Table 49, the replacement value of existing fire/EMS facilities and equipment is about $71.7 million. Dividing this by the existing equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) yields the cost per service unit of $767 per EDU. Table 49 ST PER SERVICE U Fire Station Cost $30,931,071 Vehicle Cost $35,184,000 Total Replacement Cost $71 Cost per EDU 4.ioi Source.' Fire/rescue facility cost from Table 46; vehicle cost from Table 47; equipment cost from Table 48; existing EDUs from Appendix E, Table ?. Net Cost per Service Unit A reduction of impact fees to provide a credit for future funding to be generated by new development is generally only required when there is outstanding debt on existing facilities that have been counted in the existing level of service. New development should not be required to pay for new fire/EMS facilities required to serve it through impact fees, while also having to pay for existing fixe/EMS facilities through property tax or other payments used to retire outstanding debt Fire Department -related debt issues generally provide funds for new facilities or major equipment purchases. An analysis of past bond issues shown in Appendix B indicates that currently the County's outstanding debt related to the fire department is $8.1 million. As shown in Table 50, the County's current Fire Department debt results in a credit of $87 per service unit. Table 50 CREDIT PER Total Outstanding Debt Principal $8,135,137 Fire Department EDUs 93,463 Fire Debt Credit per EDU _ $87 Source: Total outstanding debt from Appendix 8, Table 97; total fire department EDUs from Appendix D. Table 105. An additional credit is required in order to account for the portion of past property taxes from vacant land that have paid for capital facilities. This additional credit represents the value of the past five years of property taxes paid by vacant land for capital facilities funded through the general fund. Based on a review of the County's CIP status report, no capacity -expanding projects for the Fire Department were funded directly from the general fund appropriations since 2001. All recent capacity - expanding fire/EMS projects were funded through the County's GO bonds. As shown in Table 51, the HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 67 estimated annual principal and interest payments on the current outstanding debt for fixe/EMS facilities over the past five years was $4.5 million. Table 51 Source: Annual debt service based on 2004-05 debt service from Hawaii County, 2005-06 Annual Operating Budget, June 2006; fire department share of debt from Table 96. An analysis of budgetary and tax data indicates thatvacant and agricultural properties within the County generate 32.5 percent of property tax revenues, and property taxes accounted for 66.5 percent of general fund revenues. Using these percentages, the credit for past property tax payments is $11 per EDU, as shown in Table 52. Table 52 FIRE/EMS PROPERTY TAX CREDIT Percent of General Fund from Property Taxes, FY 2005-06 66.5% Percent of Property Taxes from Vacant/Ag. Land, 2006 32.5% Share of General Fund Revenue from Vacant/Ag. Land 21.6% Total General Fund Fire/EMS Capacity Funding, 2000-2005 $4,485,805 Vacant/Ag. Land Share of Fire/EMS Capital Cost, 2000-2005 $969,078 Total Existing Fire/EMS Replacement Cost $71,645,353 Percent of Existing Cost Paid by Vacant/Ag. Land, 2000-2005 1.4% Fire/EMS Cost per EDU $767 Past ProDerty Tax Credit per EDU 11 Source.* Percent of general fund from property taxes from Hawaii County, 2005-06 Annual Operating Budget, June 2006: percent of property taxes from undeveloped/agricultural land from Hawaii County Real Property Tax Administrator, June 1, 2006; fire general fund capacity funding from Table 51. Another factor that is often considered in determining fire/EMS impact fees is the degree to which outside funding has been used to cover a portion of the capital equipment and facility costs. While there is no guarantee that the past level of funding will be indicative of future outside funding support, to be conservative, the cost per service unit will be reduced to account for the likelihood that some growth - related costs can be paid with Federal and State grants. Over the past five years, the County has received an average of $830,732 annually in grants for Fire/EMS equipment, as summarized in Table 53. HAWAII COUNTWNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 68 19 10. CAPITAL U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services U.S. Dept of Homeland Security, FEMA U.S. Dept of Homeland Security, FEMA U.S. Dept of Homeland Security, FEMA U.S. Dept of Interior, National Park Svc U.S. Dept of Interior, US Fish It Wildlife U.S. Dept of Interior, US Fish & Wildlife U.S. Dept of Transportation U.S. Dept of Transportation U.S. Dept of Transportation U.S. Dept of Transportation U.S. Dept of Transportation U.S. Dept of Homeland Security U.S. Dept of Homeland Security U.S. Dept of Homeland Security U.S. Dept of Homeland Security Total Table 53 2005 Bio -terror trailers 2001 $60,000 Pediatric Manniquins 2001 $2,000 Plymo-Vents 2005 $406,016 Mobile Live Burn Unit 2005 $301,000 Training Eqpmt 2002 $152,948 Volcano Fire Engine Purchase 2004 $250,000 Pahala Volunteer Eqpt 2005 $10,000 Training Eqpmt 2002 $5,000 Lifting Bags 2005 $36,000 Spine Boards 2004 $10,163 Jaws of Life Stn 3 & 4 2003 $44,000 Child restraint seats 2001 $11,160 Reciprocating saws 2001 $11,893 Communications and Hazmat Eqpt 2005 $548,00C Rescue Boat, Vehicles 2004 $722,16C Hazmat Eqpt, Hazmat Truck 2003 $1,133,85E Average Annual Grant Funding Source: Hawaii County Fire Department, February 11, 2006. $4,153,662 As mentioned above, it may be reasonable to assume that the grant funding received in the past will continue in the future. Dividing the average annual grant funding by existing service units yields annual grant funding per service unit. Multiplying that by the present value factor results in the current lump sum amount that is the equivalent of the future stream of outside funding that the County may receive over the next 20 years to help fund Fire Department facilities and equipment. Based on these assumptions, the appropriate credit for potential grant funding is $120 for each service unit, as shown in Table 54. Table 54 CREDIT Average Annual Grant Funding $830,732 Annual Funding per EDU $9 Present Value Factor 120 vears @ 4.25%y 13.29 Grant Funding Credit per EDU at[u Source: Average annual grant funding from Table 53; total fire department EDUs from Appendix D, Table 105 ; discount rate for present value factor from Table 23. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 69 As shown in Table 55, reducing the cost per service unit by the debt credit and anticipated grant funding per service unit leaves a net cost of $549 per EDU to maintain the existing level of service for the County's fire and emergency medical service. Table 55 Total Replacement Cost per EDU $767 Debt Credit per EDU $87 Past Property Tax Credit per EDU $11 Source. Total replacement cost per EDU from Table 49; outstanding capital debt per EDU from Table 50; property tax credit from Table 52, grant funding credit per EDU from Table 54, Maximum Fee Schedule The maximum potential fire/rescue impact fees, based on the information, analysis and assumptions described in this report, are calculated in Table 56. Table 56 FIRE/EMS NET COST SCHEDULE EDUs/ Net Cost/ Net Cost/ Less than 1,000 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.97 $549 $533 1,000 - 1,499 sq, ft. Dwelling 1.03 $549 $566 1,499 - 1,999 sq, ft. Dwelling 1.06 $549 $582 2,000 - 2,999 sq, ft. Dwelling 1.13 $549 $621 3,000 - 3,999 sq, ft. Dwelling 1.20 $549 $659 4,000 sq. ft. or more Dwelling 1.28 $549 $703 Single -Family (flat rate) Dwelling 1.00 $549 $549 Multi -Family Dwelling 0.78 $549 $429 Hotel/Motel Room 0.47 $549 $258 Retail/Commercial 1000 sq. ft. 1.51 $549 $830 Office/Institutional 1000 sq. ft. 0.85 $549 $467 Industrial 1000 sq. ft. 0.53 $549 $291 Warehouse 1000 sq. ft. 0.34 $549 $187 Source, EDUs per unit from Appendix D, Table 105; net cost per EDU from Table 55 HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 70 Capital Improvement Plan `�- Funding of $49.5 million is proposed for fixe/EMS infrastructure improvements in the County's 2005- 06 to 2010-2011 capital improvements program (CIP), plus projects anticipated to be added to next year's CIP. Impact fees may only be used for capacity -expanding improvements for new fire stations or expansions and additional equipment. Some portion of station replacement costs may be eligible if the new station is larger or in some other way provides more capacity to serve growth. However, in most cases the planning for the replacement stations is not fax enough advanced to identify the size of the new station. Based on available information, eligible improvements account for $23.7 million of the total planned project costs. The current list of planned eligible improvements is shown in Table 57. Additional eligible improvement will need to be identified for the proposed 1-N/S Kohala benefit district before impact fees are implemented for this area. M Table 57 FIRE/EMS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM *new station will be larger than existing station (8,289 versus 2,700 sq. ft.) --share attributable to larger size station is eligible. Size data provided by Fire Department on August 10, 2006. Source: County of Hawai i, Capital Budgetand Six Year Capital Improvements Program, June 2006; additional projects from Fire Department, August 7, 2006. HAWAI'I COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 71 Proposed Impact Project Judicial District Benefit District Total Cost Fee Eligible Honokaa Fire Station (replacement) Hamakua 2-Hila/Hamakua $2,250,000 $0 Keaau Fire Station (replacement) S Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $3,750,000 $0 Central Fire Station (replacement) S Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $3,750,000 $0 Paauilo Fire Station Hamakua 2-Hilo/Hamakua $1,800,000 $1,800,000 Kawailani Fire Station (replacement) S Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $4,600,000 $0 Pahoa Fire Staton (replacement)* Puna 3-Puna/Ka'u $3,500,000 $2,360,000 Naalehu Fire Station (replacement) Ka'u 3-Puna/Ka'u $2,250,000 $0 Volcano Fire Station (replacement) Ka'u 3-Puna/Ka'u $2,250,000 $0 Kalaoa Fire Station N Kona 4-N/S Kona $2,350,000 $2,350,000 Captain Cook Fire Station(replacement) SKona 4-N/S Kona $1,150,000 $0 Kailua Fire Station Annex N Kona 4-N/S Kona $2,300,000 $2,300,000 Koloko-Honokohau Area Fire Station N Kona 4-N/S Kona $4,600,000 $4,600,000 Kona Makai Fire Station (replacement) N Kona 4-N/S Kona $4,600,000 $0 Fire Fighter Training Facility S Hilo County -Wide $1,800,000 $1,800,000 Fire Admin. and Support Complex S Hilo County -Wide $8,500,000 $8,500,000 Total $49,450,000 $23,710,000 *new station will be larger than existing station (8,289 versus 2,700 sq. ft.) --share attributable to larger size station is eligible. Size data provided by Fire Department on August 10, 2006. Source: County of Hawai i, Capital Budgetand Six Year Capital Improvements Program, June 2006; additional projects from Fire Department, August 7, 2006. HAWAI'I COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 71 0 this page intentionally left blank HAWAII COUNTYUNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 72 CHAPTER 10: POLICE Each of the eight districts is served by a main police station. There are also four substations. The combined police headquarters for Hilo and the County is located in the Hilo Public Safety Building on Kaiolam Street. The location of the existing police stations and substations are shown in Figure 8. Figure 8 POLICE STATION LOCATIONS KAILUA PUS%A ego KEAt1NOV Kpuha ^ � Capt Cock IOALAKWEWA 1 OCEAN VIEW Assessment and Benefit Districts POP -kw PEPEMO iMCaho�a Nkhrtlsaa :Ism Maas �p 1 Hd s Vai"" ukt aL Mr. V • Police Stations (Existing) • Police Stations (Proposed) As with fixe/EMS fees, most police impact fees are assessed at the jurisdiction level. Central facilities serve the entire island, and officers may patrol or respond to calls beyond their station's primary response area. The four benefit districts proposed for fixe/EMS fees are also recommended for the police impact fees (see Figure 2 on page 18). However, up to 20 percent of the impact fee revenue could be used for county -wide projects or projects in neighboring districts that provide benefit to the district in which the fees are collected. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 73 Service Unit The recommended approach for police impact fees is to use the service units—"equivalent dwelling units" or EDUs—described in Appendix D and also utilized for fire/EMS facilities. Cost per Service Unit The cost per service unit based on the existing level of service can be determined by dividing the replacement cost of existing police and law enforcement facilities, equipment, and vehicles by the existing number of public safety service units. The Police Department owns each of the eight district police stations, including the Public Safety Building in Hilo, and three of the sub -station facilities. The Ocean View Substation and the ten mini police stations are all located in leased or shared facilities with other County departments. In addition, the police department's 12 radio sites are all located on either leased land or co -located on land with other County facilities. Leased and co -located facilities and radio sites are not included in the analysis of facility costs. The total value of existing County -owned police facilities is based on the existing facility size and recent construction costs for the East Hawaii Detention Facility at the Public Safety Complex of $450 per square foot. The value of the police facility land is available based on the land purchased for the detention facility in Hilo in 2001. The combined replacement value of the existing police facilities, is estimated to be $71.74 million, as shown in Table 58. "1 Table 58 �r EXISTING POLICE FACILITY REPLACEMENT COSTS Public Safety Complex 7.94 88,364 $2,380,799 $39,763,800 $42,144,59! Laupahoehoe 1.56 5,248 $59,508 $2,361,600 $2,421,101 Honokaa 2.39 5,280 $91,514 $2,376,000 $2,467,51- 2,467,51South SouthKohala 14.80 6,048 $566,109 $2,721,600 $3,287,701 Maunalani Sub -Station 2.16 255 $82,523 $114,750 $197,27: North Kohala 2.50 3,150 $95,645 $1,417,500 $1,513,14! Kona 10.00 21,312 $382,580 $9,590,400 $9,972,98 Captain Cook Sub -Station 4.01 10,000 $153,231 $4,500,000 $4,653,23 Ka'u 5.00 3,864 $191,290 $1,738,800 $1,930,091 Puna 0.39 5,900 $14,934 $2,655,000 $2,669,93 Source: Police facility land and building information from Hawaii Police Department Tax Map Key: Public Safety Complex land cost based on 2001 land purchase in Hilo, and police facility replacement cost based on East Hawaii Detention Facility (Hilo) cost of $450 per square foot in 2002, both provided by Hawaii Police Department, August 23.2005; land cost for other stations based on average park land cost per acre. The Police Department's current inventory of law enforcement vehicles and major capital equipment is listed in Table 59. The County police department does not maintain a fleet of patrol vehicles; instead, w. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 74 the county reimburses patrol officers for the use of their private vehicle and provides vehicle equipment. Based on current cost to purchase new equipment, the total replacement cost for all County -owned �.- vehicles, subsidized vehicle equipment and other major capital equipment is $2.63 million. Table 59 AND MAJOR CA Support Vehicles 12 $40,000 $4 Prisoner Transport Van 2 $42,000 $ Special Response Vehicle 1 $330,000 $3 Gas Chomatograph 1 $90,000 $ Infrared System 1 $79,600 $ Dictation System 1 $174,000 $1 Digital Recording System 1 $90,000 $ Emergency Generator 2 $130,000 $2 Patrol Vehicle Eauipment 373 $2,785 $1,( Source: Number of vehicles provided by Hawai'i County Police Chief, September 1,2005: unit costs from Police Chief, August 23, and September 15, 2005. Dividing the total law enforcement replacement costs by the existing equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) yields the cost per service unit. The cost per service unit is based on the existing level of service; as shown in Table 60, the cost per service unit is $796 per EDU. Lr. Table 60 POLICE COST PER SERVICE UNIT W LM Police Department Vehicles and Capital Equipment $2,626,405 Police Station Facilities $71,743,723 Total, Existing Replacement Cost $74,370,128 Fxistina EDUs. 2005 93,463 Source: Cost of vehicles and equipment from Table 59: police facilities cost from Table 58; existing EDUs from Appendix D. Table 105. Net Cost per Service Unit Over the last five years, the County has received an average of $522,100 annually in Federal grants for major police department equipment and buildings, as summarized in Table 61. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 75 Table 61 POLICE GRANT FUNDING, 2000 to 2005 East Hawaii Detention Facility (Block Grant Funds) 2002 $2,618,801 Special Response Team Command Vehicle 2004 $330,889 4 x 4 Ford Van 2004 $33,172 Ford Van 2005 $30,000 Chevrolet MSTR 2002 $93,707 4 x 4 Ford 2005 $25,800 Total Grant Funding 2000-2005 $3,132,369 Average Annual Grant Funding $522,100 Source: Hawai'i County Police Department Chief, August 23 and September 15, 2005 It is reasonable to assume that the grant funding received per police department service unit in the past will continue in the future. Dividing the average annual grant funding by existing service units yields annual funding per service unit. Multiplying that by the present value factor results in the current lump sum amount that is the equivalent of the future stream of outside funding that the County may receive over the next 20 years to help fund police equipment and improvements. Based on these assumptions, the appropriate credit for potential grant funding for the Police Department is $74 for each new single- family home, or police service unit equivalent, as shown in Table 62. Table 62 GRANT FUNDING CREDIT Average Annual Grant Funding $522,1 Police EDUs. 2005 Annual Funding per EDU $5.59 Present Value Factor (20 vears (d 4.25%) 13.29 Source: Average annual grant funding from Table 61; existing police department EDUs from Appendix D. Table 105; discount rate for present value factor from Table 23. As with other facility impact fees, a reduction of impact fees to provide a credit for future funding to be generated by new development is required for outstanding debt on existing facilities that have been counted in the existing level of service. An analysis of past bond issues indicates that currently the County's outstanding debt related to the police department is $5.5 million. As shown in Table 63, the Police Department's current outstanding debt results in a debt credit of $59 per service unit. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 76 W 0 N Table 63 POLICE DEBT CREDIT Outstanding Police Department Related Debt $5,532,926 Existinq EDUs 93,463 Debt Credit per EDU $59 Source. Police department debt from Appendix B, Table 97; existing EDUs from Appendix D, Table 105. State law requires a credit for property taxes paid by vacant land during the five years before it is developed and used for capacity -expanding police facility improvements. Based on a review of the County's CIP status report, no capacity -expanding projects for the Police Department were funded directly from the general fund appropriations since 2001. All recent capacity -expanding police projects were funded through the County's GO bonds. As shown in Table 64, the estimated annual principal and interest payments on the current outstanding debt for the police department over the past five years was $2.5 million. POLICE Table 64 CAPACITY Annual GO Bond Debt Service Share of Annual Police Department Debt Service 2001-2005 $24,921, Source: Annual debt service based on 200405 debt service from Hawaii County, 2005-06 Annual Operating Budget, June 2006; police department share of debt from Table 95. An analysis of budgetary and tax data indicates that vacant and agricultural properties within the County generate 32.5 percent of property tax revenues, and property taxes accounted for 66.5 percent of general fund revenues. Using these percentages, the credit for past property tax payments is $6 per EDU, as shown in Table 65. HAWAI'1 COUNTYIINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 77 Table 65 POLICE PAST PROPERTY TAX CREDIT Source: Percent of general fund from property taxes from Hawaii County, 2005-06 Annual Operating Budget, June 2006; percent of property taxes from undeveloped/agricultural land from Hawaii County Real Property Tax Administrator, June 1, 2006; police department general fund capacity funding from Table 64; police EDUs from Appendix D, Table 105. As shown in Table 66, reducing the cost per service unit by the debt credit, property tax credit and anticipated grant funding per service unit leaves a net cost of $657 per EDU to maintain the existing level of service. Table 66 POLICE NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT Total Police Replacement Cost per EDU $7961 Debt Credit per EDU $69 I! Past Property Tax Credit per EDU $6 Source: Total police replacement cost per EDU from Table 60; debt credit per EDU from Table 63; past property tax credit from Table 65; grant funding credit per EDU from Table 62. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 78 Maximum Fee Schedule The maximum potential police department impact fees, based on the information, analysis and assumptions described in this report, are calculated in Table 67. Table 67 POLICE NET COST SCHEDULE Less than 1,000 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.97 $657 $637 1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.03 $657 $677 1,500 - 1,999 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.06 $657 $696 2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.13 $657 $742 3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.20 $657 $788 4,000 sq ft or more Dwelling 1.28 $657 $841 Single -Family (flat rate) Dwelling 1.00 $657 $657 Multi -Family Dwelling 0.78 $657 $512 Hotel/Motel Room 0.47 $657 $309 Retail/Commercial 1000 sq. ft. 1.51 $657 $992 Office/Institutional 1000 sq. ft. 0.85 $657 $558 Industrial 1000 sq. ft. 0.53 $657 $348 N„ Source, EDUs per unit from Appendix D. Table 105; net cost per EDU from Table 66. Capital Improvement Plan Funding of $72.2 million is proposed for police infrastructure improvements in the County's 2005-06 to 2010-2011 capital improvements program (CIP). Impact fees may only be used for capacity - expanding improvements such as new police stations or enhancements to communications and equipment that provide capabilities beyond the current level of service. A detailed breakdown of each project component cost was not available; consequently, the identification of eligible projects is preliminary and subject to verification. Eligible improvements account for $13.8 million of the total CIP costs. The current list of eligible improvements from the six-year CIP is shown in Table 68. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 79 Table 68 POLICE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Source: County of Hawaii, Capital Budget and Six Year HAWAI'I COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 80 9 Is Judicial Proposed Project District Benefit District Total Impact Cost Fee Eligible S. Kohala Police Station Parking Lot Expansion S Kohala 1-N/S Kohala $25,000 $25,000 S. Kohala Heating and Cooling Improvement S Kohala 1-N/S Kohala $68,000 Kalaoa Substation Hamakua 2-Hilo/Hamakua $50,000 $50,000 Pahoa Police Substation S. Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $2,685,000 $2,685,000 Public Safety Complex Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $1,300,000 $1,300,000 Security Fencing for Public Safety Complex Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $125,000 $125,000 District Holding Cell Improvements Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $312,000 Public Safety Complex Indoor Range Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $150,000 $150,000 Police Records Renovation Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $35,000 Puna Police Station Puna 3-Puna/Ka'u $3,685,000 $3,685,000 Kealakehe Refueling Station Upgrade $. Kona 4-N/S Kona $300,000 Captain Cook Station S Kona 4-N/S Kona $3,685,000 $3,685,000 Kona Evidence Warehouse N Kona 4 -NIS Kona $130,000 $130,000 Renovation of District Stations Various Various $150,000 700 Megahertz System Various Various $21,000,000 700 Megahertz Conversion Various Various $23,040,000 Microwave relocation/renovation Various Various $13,610,000 Data/Information Transmission System Various Various $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Total $72,207,000 $13,760,000 Source: County of Hawaii, Capital Budget and Six Year HAWAI'I COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 80 9 Is CHAPTER 11: SOLID WASTE The County currently has two landfill sites: the sanitary landfill at Pu`uanahulu on the west side of the island and the unlined landfill in Hilo on the east side of the island. There are 21 solid waste transfer sites, like the one pictured at right, situated throughout the island. The locations of the landfills and solid waste transfer stations are shown in Figure 9. Residents can drop off their household solid waste for free at the transfer stations. However, some residents pay private haulers to pick up their garbage. Commercial businesses and private haulers are required to take their solid waste to the landfill, where they are charged a tipping fee. Commercially -hauled rubbish accounts for 61 percent of the waste entering the landfill, while the remaining 39 percent is household waste from transfer stations. Tipping fees account for 35 percent of revenue for the operation of the Solid Waste Division, while the remainder of the Division's budget comes from the general fund. Figure 9 LANDFILL/TRANSFER STATION LOCATIONS MAMKONA Eq P..uia Puu.nhuN Land11 GW.�/�TIS) r`�J N..0 w (Trs) , war (Tory NO WLa fITWO a ' P.wawttrst tHio Hilo (yr.) (yr.) .t NAALEW 0 tandfdl / Transfer Statism (TIS) (E)dsting) • Latxifil) l Transfer Station MIS) (Proposed) HAWAL't COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 81 Faced with the possible closure of the Hilo solid waste facility, the County has studied options for solid waste disposal in its waste management plan." The waste management plan concluded that the County has enough capacity at the Pu`uanahulu landfill to accommodate the projected waste stream for the entire county for 35 to 50 years and that an additional landfill would not be needed in the near future. The report emphasized the recovery of recyclable materials and waste reduction through consumer education and improved facilities. Both the waste management plan and the current County CIP include construction of two new waste transfer stations; however, County staff indicated that additional transfer facilities are unlikely. The use of impact fee revenue is restricted to projects that add capacity. It is unknown what additional capacity expansion activity is planned beyond the construction of additional residential waste transfer facilities already programmed in the CIP. Improvements to existing sites may not be eligible for impact fee funding if they do not increase the capacity of the transfer facility. Before implementing a solid waste impact fee the County should determine if there are sufficient capacity -enhancing needs for solid waste, or if the capacity of the existing facilities are adequate to serve planned growth. Assessment and Benefit Districts Given the likelihood that the county will eventually be served by only one landfill, the waste transfer stations and landfill will operate as one interconnected system for the entire island. Consequently, the fees should be calculated county -wide. However, the County may desire to divide the county into the four benefit districts recommended for the other facilities (see Figure 2 on page 18). It is recommended that the County should earmark only 60 percent of the funds collected in each district to be spent within that district, with the remaining 40 percent available to be used in any benefit district or for county -wide functions such as landfill improvements. This percentage approximates the relative replacement costs of transfer stations versus landfill and vehicles. Service Unit Hawaii County does not provide residential or commercial waste collection services. According to the County's Solid Waste Division, private companies haul approximately 61 percent of the waste and pay a tipping fee to dump the waste at the County's landfill sites.12 The remaining 39 percent is self -hauled waste taken to the County's transfer stations, which are provided for disposal of residential waste. Approximately 87 percent of all single-family households self -haul rubbish to one of the islands 21 transfer stations. Since the County charges commercial customers for the solid waste service, the impact fee for solid waste should apply only to residential land uses that utilize the transfer stations. The total number of service units utilized for calculation of the solid waste impact fee only include single-family detached units. In addition, the service units are adjusted to reflect the proportion of households that currently utilize the transfer stations rather than contract with a private hauler. As shown in Table 69, for purposes of calculating the impact fee, the estimated total solid waste residential EDUs is 51,132. t Harding ESE, Update to the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for the County of Havai; December 2002 12 Department of Environmental Management, Solid Waste Division, Much 10, 2006 memorandum HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 82 Table 69 r EXISTING SOLID WASTE Single -Family Detached Units 58,772 Transfer Station Utilization Rate 87% Total Solid Waste EDUs b1,1JL Source: Existing units from Table 96 in Appendix C: EDUs per unit from Table 30: transfer station utilization rate from Department of Environmental Management Solid Waste Division, March 10, 2006 memorandum. Cost Per Service Unit The County's existing solid waste capital equipment and facilities dedicated for residential service are used to determine the cost per service unit. The County provides solid waste transfer stations for residents to discard their solid waste. The total estimated replacement value of the County's 21 solid waste facilities is shown in Table 70. The Keauhou facility was the most recently constructed transfer station; the transfer station improvement were constructed in 1999 at a cost of approximately $550,000; adjusted for increased construction costs, the current replacement cost for each transfer station would be approximately $698,000. As shown in Table 70, based on the most recent cost, the replacement value of the transfer facilities is $14.8 million. The replacement cost does not include the value of land, since land value and property information for the transfer facility sites are unavailable. Table 70 SOLID WASTE TRANSFER STATION Transfer Station Unit Cost 1999 $554,298 1.271 Total a 1 v,ova,uvv Source: Hawaii County Fixed asset by fund, October 2005: original construction cost adjusted by Engineering News -Record Construction Cost Index from year of acquisition to June 2006. As previously mentioned, Hawaii County has two landfill sites; however, only the West Hawaii landfill has available capacity. The West Hawaii landfill (Pu uanahulu) is located on land that was provided to the County by the State of Hawaii and is operated by County personnel with management assistance from Waste Management of Hawaii, Inc. (WMI). WMI is responsible for construction and site development of landfill cells, environmental monitoring of the facility, and closure and post -closure care of the facility. The facility has sufficient capacity for an estimated 50 years. Most capacity -expanding investments at the West landfill, such as the construction of new cells, are undertaken by Waste Management as part of the operating contract and are paid for through tipping fees. Nonetheless, the County has funded several major improvements over the past 10 years; the value of the identifiable capacity -related improvements to the site are shown in Table 71. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 83 Table 71 SOLID WASTE LANDFILL COST West Hawaii Landfill 1997 $4,805,498 1.320 Total $9,305,289 39.0% Source: Hawaii County Fixed asset by fund, October 2005; original construction cost adjusted by ENR CCI from year of acquisition to January 2005, Table 72 shows the inventory of solid waste equipment owned by the County. Some of the County's solid waste vehicles are financed with capital leases; these vehicles were omitted from the inventory since there is no information regarding the outstanding payments on these leases. As with the County's landfill costs, the total value of the equipment has been adjusted to account for the residential share of solid waste generation. Table 72 SOLID WASTE EQUIPMENT COST R/TR 38 $93,000 $3,534,000 Support Vehicles 34 $29,000 $986,000 P/e TR 11 $117,000 $1,287,000 Tractors 5 $100,000 $500,000 Dump Truck 4 $54,000 $216,000 Wilkens TLR 4 $99,000 $396,000 Backhoe 3 $62,000 $186,000 Cat Hauler 2 $365,000 $730,000 B/Lowboy 1 $100,000 $100,000 Subtotal $8,047,000 Percent Attributable to Residential 39.0% Source: Equipment type and quantity derived from Hawaii County Fixed asset by fund, October 2005; average unit cost based on original purchase price from Fixed Asset listing adjusted by U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, U.S. City Average, All Items, All Urban Consumers (1982-84=100 and based on April 2006 = 201.5); total equipment asset value adjustment based on amount attributable to residential customers. As shown in Table 73, the replacement value for the County's existing residential solid waste facilities, equipment and vehicle fleet is an estimated $22.87 million. The full value of the transfer stations are included; however, only the value of the landfill facility that is attributed to residential customers utilizing the transfer stations is included, since the tipping fees from commercial haulers provide funds for the landfill facility. Dividing the cost of existing capital by the solid waste service unit population of the County results in a cost per residential EDU of $447. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 84 Table 73 COST PER SERVICE UNIT Transfer Station Cost $14,805,000 Landfill Cost $4,930,756 Solid Waste Equipment Cost $3,138,330 Total Replacement Cost $22,874,086 Solid Waste EDUs 51,132 Source: Transfer station costs from Table 70; landfill cost from Table 71 adjusted by 39% based on share of facility attributable to nonresidential customers. solid waste equipment cost from Table 72; solid waste EDUs from Table 69. Net Cost per Service Unit A reduction of impact fees to provide a credit for future funding to be generated by new development is required for outstanding debt and capital leases for solid waste equipment and facilities. As shown in Table 74, the County has $12.3 million in outstanding debt related to solid waste facilities. However, approximately $5.7 million is related to residential services by allocating one-half of the debt for the landfill facilities to the residential customers. Table 74 SOLID DEBT 1993 $18,200,000 $35,000 39.1% $9,497,250 $3,71 1999a $70,000 $1,000,000 96.0% $952,560 $9' Total $18,640,000 $1,729,745 442% $11,055,705 $5,107,0541 Unknown 44.2% $1,232,949 $544,716 Total Residential Solid Waste Debt $12,288,654 $5,651,770 Source: Original debt issue data from Hawaii County Finance Department; residential share of debt based on 39% allocation of landfill -related debt and 100% of transfer station debt for each issue; current outstanding solid waste and unknown debt from Appendix B. Table 97; unknown debt allocated to residential customers based on average residential share of total outstanding debt. Deducting the outstanding debt from the total available replacement cost and then dividing the existing service units yields the net cost per service unit, as shown in Table 75. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 85 Table 75 SOLID WASTE DEBT CREDIT PER SERVICE UNIT Outstanding Debt $5,651,770 Residential EDUs 51,132 Debt Credit per EDU $111 Source. Outstanding debt from Table 74; existing EDUs from Table 69. Based on a review of the County's CIP status report, no capacity -expanding projects for the solid waste facilities were funded directly from the general fund appropriations since 2001. All recent capacity - expanding solid waste projects were funded through the County's GO bonds. As shown in Table 76, the estimated annual principal and interest payments on the current outstanding debt for solid waste over the past five years was $4.3 million. Table 76 SOLID WASTE GENERAL FUND CAPACITY EXPENDITURES, 2001-2005 Annual GO Bond Debt Service $24,921,13E Residential Share of Solid Waste Debt Service 44.2% Solid Waste Share of Total Outstanding Debt 7.8% Annual Debt Service $859,181 Source: Annual debt service based on 2004-05 debt service from Hawaii County, 2005-06 Annual Operating Budget, June 2006; residential share of solid waste debt service from Table 74; solid waste share of debt from Table 96. An analysis of budgetary and tax data indicates thatvacant and agricultural properties within the County generate 32.5 percent of property tax revenues, and property taxes accounted for 66.5 percent of general fund revenues. Using these percentages, the credit for past property tax payments is $18.14 per EDU, as shown in Table 77. Table 77 Source: Percent of general fund from property taxes from Hawaii County, 2005-06Annua/ Operating Budget, June 2006; percent of property taxes from undeveloped/agricultural land from Hawaii County Real Property Tax Administrator, June 1, 2006; solid waste general fund capacity funding from Table 76;existing EDUs from Table 69_ HAWAel COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 86 M "n't Over the last five years, the County has received an average of $291,300 annually in Federal and State grants for capacity -related enhancement project for solid waste facilities, as summarized in Table 78. Table 78 SOLID WASTE GRANT FUNDING, 2000 to 2005 EPA Recycling center planning and development for Keaau 2002 $400,000 EPA Recycling center for Waimea planning and design 2004 $397,600 CBDG Repair and enhancement of five transfer stations 2004 $250,000 State Development of 8 container deposit centers at transfer stations 2004 $150,000 Grant Funding 2000-2005 $1.747 Average Annual Grant Funding Source. Havvairi County Department of Environmental Management Director, March 10, 2006 memo. It may be reasonable to assume that the grant funding received per solid waste service unit in the past will continue in the future. Dividing the average annual grant funding by existing service units yields annual funding per service unit. Multiplying that by the present value factor results in the current lump sum amount that is the equivalent of the future stream of outside funding that the County may receive over the next 20 years to help fund solid waste collection facilities. Based on these assumptions, the appropriate credit for potential grant funding for the solid waste division is $76 for each new single- family home, or solid waste service unit equivalent, as shown in Table 79. �._ Table 79 SOLID WASTE GRANT FUNDING IN Average Annual Grant Funding $291,300 Existing Solid Waste EDUs, 2005 51,132 Annual Funding per EDU $5.70 Factor (20 years @ 4.25%) 13.29 Source. Average annual grant funding from Table 78; existing EDUs from Table 69; discount rate for present value factor from Table 23. As shown in Table 80, reducing the cost per service unit by the debt credit and property tax credit leaves a net cost of $242 per EDU to maintain the existing level of service. HAWArl COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 87 Table 80 0.97 SOLID WASTE NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT Total Replacement Cost per EDU $447 Debt Credit per EDU $111 Past Property Tax Credit per EDU $18 Grant Funding Credit per EDU $76 Net Solid Waste Cost per EDU $242 Source: Replacement cost per EDU from Table 73; outstanding debt per EDU from Table 75; past property tax credit per EDU from Table 77; grant funding credit from Table 79, Maximum Fee Schedule The maximum potential solid waste impact fees, based on the information, analysis and assumptions described in this report, are calculated in Table 81. The solid waste fee only applies to single-family residential properties that utilize the self -haul transfer stations. Table 81 SOLID WASTE NET COST Less than 1,000 sq. ft. 0.97 $242 $235 1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft. 1.03 $242 $250 1,500 - 1,999 sq. ft. 1.06 $242 $257 2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft. 1.13 $242 $274 3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft. 1.20 $242 $291 4.000 sa. ft. or more 1.28 $242 $310 Source: EDUs per unit from Table 69; net cost per EDU from Table 80, Capital Improvement Plan Funding of $44.4 million is proposed for solid waste infrastructure improvements in the County's 2005- 06 to 2010-2011 capital improvements program (CIP). Impact fees may only be used fat capacity - expanding improvements for facilities or equipment that expand the current capacity of solid waste collection or potentially for recycling activities that reduce the volume of solid waste entering the County's landfill facility. A detailed breakdown of each project component cost was not available; consequently, the identification of eligible projects is preliminary and subject to verification. Eligible improvements account for $16.4 million of the total CIP costs. The current list of eligible improvements from the six-year CIP and County staff is shown in Table 93. Eligible projects should be identified for 4-N/S Kona benefit district prior to implementation of a solid waste impact fee. rR '"000 HAWAII COUNTYUNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 88 `ikw Table 82 SOLID WASTE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Source: County of Hawai'i, Capital Budgetand Six Year Capital improvements Program, June 2006; green waste facility project cost from Hawaii, County Department of Environmental Management, August 2, 2006. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 89 Proposed impact Fee ProjectJudicial Benefit Green Waste Facility S Kohala 1-N/S Kohala $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Equipment Maintenance Facility S Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $7,900,000 Hilo Scrap Metal Salvage Facility S Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $1,550,000 $1,550,000 Hilo Scrap Metal Yard Remediation S Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $1,650,000 Hilo Base and Facility S Hilo 2-Hilo/Hamakua $825,000 $825,000 Waiea Transfer Station Ka'u 3-Puna/Ka'u $50,000 $50,000 Kona Scrap Metal Yard Remediation N Kona 4-N/S Kona $1,100,000 Kailua Landfill Remediation N Kona 4-N/S Kona $2,150,000 Waimea Landfill Remediation S Kohala County -Wide $2,200,000 Transfer Station Replace/Enhancement Various County -Wide $3,900,000 $3,900,000 S Hilo Landfill Closure S Hilo County -Wide $13,000,000 West Hawaii Regional Sort Station Various County -Wide $8,550,000 $8,550,000 Total $44,375,000 $16,375,000 Source: County of Hawai'i, Capital Budgetand Six Year Capital improvements Program, June 2006; green waste facility project cost from Hawaii, County Department of Environmental Management, August 2, 2006. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 89 this page intentionally left blank HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 90 CHAPTER 12: WASTEWATER r As shown in Figure 10, Hawaii County presently operates municipal wastewater systems in Hilo, Papa`ikou, Kapehu, Pepeekeo and Kealakehe. The rest of the island is served by private wastewater treatment facilities, or individual facilities such as cesspools or septic tanks. About 77 percent of the Hawaii County population is served by cesspools. The State Department of Health intends to promulgate rules that will prohibit cesspools in Hawaii County. M Figure 10 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 91 The County currently charges a water "facilities charge" to cover the capital costs of water infrastructure, but does not have a comparable fee for wastewater. The water facilities fee is $1,190 for the first dwelling unit (or water demand equivalent), and $5,500 for each additional unit. Residents and businesses that are connected to a County sewer system pay user fees which fund all operations and maintenance. The County could charge new wastewater customers an impact fee to cover a pro rata share of the capital costs of the treatment plants, interceptors, force mains and pumping facilities. Assessment and Benefit Districts The County provides wastewater service to customers located in the vicinity of one of the five existing wastewater treatment facilities. It is recommended that the wastewater impact fee service area should be limited to areas currently served by a wastewater treatment plant. For this study, a county -wide level of service will be calculated based on existing facilities, with a benefit district established for each existingwastewater treatment plant, as shown in Figure 11. The wastewater impact fees will only be assessed on new customers when they connect to the County wastewater system. Figure 11 SEWER SERVICE AREAS 0 ©'i Keamket:� p v bPm+aa� 4 1 - 0 n^� w.oee.s..�.woaw o HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 92 0 Service Unit To calculate wastewater impact fees, the wastewater demand associated with different types of customers must be expressed in a common unit of measurement, called a "service unit" A "Single - Family Equivalent" unit or SFE is a common denominator that converts all classes of customers into a common unit of expression. An SFE is the wastewater demand associated with a typical single-family residence. Wastewater impact fees for new residential customers will be charged on a per unit basis, with the fee based on the anticipated wastewater demand compared to a typical single-family dwelling. For nonresidential uses, wastewater impact fees are almost universally charged based on the size of the water meter, irrespective of land use. Table 83 is the recommended equivalency table, showing the capacity of water meters of various sizes and the equivalency factors. Table 83 METER EQUIVALENCY FACTORS Source: Midrange of normal operating flow rates In gallons per minute for simple (less than 3"), compound (3-8") and turbine (10") meters from American Water Works Association, AWWA Standards C700-95, C702-01, C701-88. Customarily, the number of existing wastewater SFEs is based on the number of water customers by meter size with the demand per SFE calculated based on average daily wastewater flow. By definition, a typical single-family unit represents, on average, one SFE. In the absence of such customer data, the demand per wastewater service unit in this study was estimated by utilizing an assumed average daily consumption of 80 gallons per day (gpd) per capita for residential customers that was utilized in both the 2004 wastewater capacity fee study" and the 1990 Hawaii County impact fee study. Demand for wastewater facilities is proportional to the number of people in a dwelling unit or hotel room. Consequently, data on average household size for various types of units is a critical component in determining the wastewater impact fee in the absence of actual customer data. Other types of units each represent an SFE, based on their relative average household sizes and wastewater demand per unit. The relative SFEs per unit are based on demographic data presented and analyzed in Appendix C. ,►s " R.W. Beck, Needs Assessment Study and Capacity Assessment Fee Study, prepared for the County of Hawaii, Department of Environmental Management, Wastewater Division, January 2004 Draft Report HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 93 5/8" x 3/4" Meter 10 1.0 1" Meter 25 2.5 1-1/2" Meter 50 5.0 2" Meter 80 8.0 3" Meter 160 16.0 4" Meter 250 25.0 6" Meter 500 50.0 8" Meter 800 80.0 Source: Midrange of normal operating flow rates In gallons per minute for simple (less than 3"), compound (3-8") and turbine (10") meters from American Water Works Association, AWWA Standards C700-95, C702-01, C701-88. Customarily, the number of existing wastewater SFEs is based on the number of water customers by meter size with the demand per SFE calculated based on average daily wastewater flow. By definition, a typical single-family unit represents, on average, one SFE. In the absence of such customer data, the demand per wastewater service unit in this study was estimated by utilizing an assumed average daily consumption of 80 gallons per day (gpd) per capita for residential customers that was utilized in both the 2004 wastewater capacity fee study" and the 1990 Hawaii County impact fee study. Demand for wastewater facilities is proportional to the number of people in a dwelling unit or hotel room. Consequently, data on average household size for various types of units is a critical component in determining the wastewater impact fee in the absence of actual customer data. Other types of units each represent an SFE, based on their relative average household sizes and wastewater demand per unit. The relative SFEs per unit are based on demographic data presented and analyzed in Appendix C. ,►s " R.W. Beck, Needs Assessment Study and Capacity Assessment Fee Study, prepared for the County of Hawaii, Department of Environmental Management, Wastewater Division, January 2004 Draft Report HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 93 The wastewater demand and SFEs associated with each housing type and unit size category are shown in Table 84. Table 84 WASTEWATER SERVICE UNIT MULTIPLIERS Less than 1,000 sq. ft. 2.78 222.4 0.97 1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft. 2.95 236.0 1.03 1,500 - 1,999 sq. ft. 3.06 244.8 1.07 2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft. 3.23 258.4 1.13 3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft. 3.45 276.0 1.20 Single -Family (flat rate) 2.87 229.6 1.00 Multi -Family 2.26 180.8 0.79 Source: Average household size for single-family average and multi -family units from Table 99 in Appendix C; average household sizes by size categories from Table 100 in Appendix C; average occupancy for hotel/motel rooms estimated to be one-half of average vehicle occupancy on vacation trips, as reported by U.S. Dept. of Transportation, National Household Travel Survey, 2001; gallons per day is based on assumed demand of 80 gpd per capita; SFEs/unit is ratio of average household size to single-family detached average household size. Wastewater System Capacity J As mentioned in the introduction, Hawaii County presently operates municipal wastewater systems in Hilo, Papa`ikou, Kapehu, Pepeekeo and Kealakehe. The system's capacity is based on the combined average wastewater flow that the five treatment plants are designed for, less an allowance for inflow and infiltration during dry weather. As shown in Table 8S, the estimated system capacity is 9.97 million gallons per day (mgd). Table 85 WASTEWATER SYSTEM CAPACITY Hilo 5.00 0.80 4.20 Kealakehe 5.31 0.31 5.01 Kapehu 0.02 0.00 0.02 Kulaimano 0.50 0.07 0.43 Total 11.18 1.21 9.97 Source. R.W.Beck, Needs AssessmentStudyand Capacity Assessment Fee Study, January 2004 Draft Report, The 2004 wastewater capacity fee study concluded that the existing collection system could not serve a greater capacity than the existing wastewater treatment facilities. For the purpose of determining the ,OW4 wastewater impact fee, the combined capacity of the wastewater treatment facilities and collections facilities is the same as the total estimated wastewater treatment plant capacity. HAWAPI COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 94 Cost Per Service Unit In Hawaii County, developers are generally required to install collection facilities such as laterals and collector sewers. These collection facilities typically consist of force mains and gravity sewers that are less than 12 -inches in diameter. Based on a review of Wastewater Division construction records, the 2004 wastewater needs assessment study found that interceptor and force main costs are estimated to be 45 percent of the total collection system project cost; the remaining 55 percent of collection system project costs are for laterals and collector sewers. The cost of facilities included in the impact fee include 55 percent of collection facility costs and 100 percent of the costs for the public service center, pumping and treatment. However, if interceptor and force mains are funded through assessments or State revolving loans that are then financed with assessments, they would need to be excluded from the impact fee calculation or a credit for the interceptor and force main costs would need to be provided for projects that are funded from assessments. Since growth generally cannot be served with older, depreciated facilities, but instead will require new facilities, it is appropriate to base the fees on the replacement cost of existing facilities adjusted to reflect existing debt and current capacity level. An inventory of existing wastewater facilities is shown in Table 108 in Appendix F. Table 86 shows a summary of the replacement value of the facilities based on the original cost of the facility adjusted to account for increases in construction and material costs. As with the 2004 study, the County's Building and Improvement Inventory was used to estimate the cost in 2005 dollars of replacing wastewater facilities. The total estimated replacement cost is $244.4 million. However, since some of the collection facilities were installed by developers, the collection facility cost is adjusted to account for the share of those facilities that are related to interceptor and force mains that are less than 12 -inches in diameter. As a result, the adjusted replacement cost of Hawaii County's wastewater facilities is an estimated $197.6 million. Table 86 FACILITY REPLACEMENT COST Public Service Center $421,438 100% $421,4 Collection $85,045,790 45% $38,270,6 Pumping $34,860,160 100% $34,860,1 Source: Replacement cost from Table 108 of Appendix F; cost adjustment based on estimated cost of force mains and > 12 -inch diameter gravity sewers from Needs Assessment Study and Capacity Assessment Fee Study, January 2004. The wastewater cost per SFE is determined based on the system's replacement cost, total average daily capacity, and wastewater demand per SFE. As shown in Table 87, dividing the cost of existing wastewater facilities by the system's capacity results in a wastewater cost of $4,550 per SFE. P HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 95 Table 87 Source: Wastewater facility cost from Table 86; capacity from Table 85; gallons per day per SFE from Table 84. Net Cost per Service Unit As with other facility impact fees, a reduction of impact fees to provide a credit for future funding to be generated by new development is required for outstanding debt on existing wastewater facilities that have been counted in the existing level of service. The County has utilized both GO debt and State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans from the State of Hawaii to finance wastewater capital projects. Currently, there is an estimated $2.4 million in outstanding SRF debt principal. Based on the analysis of GO bond issues and the current outstanding debt, the total GO bond outstanding balance for wastewater projects is $26.8 million. As shown in Table 88, the total GO and SRF outstanding debt on the existing wastewater treatment facilities is approximately $29.1 million, which results in a debt credit of $670 per SFE. Table 88 Source: SRF outstanding debt based on principal balance for FY 2006 provided by Hawaii County Finance Department; GO debt from Appendix B, Table 97: capacity from Table 85; SFE demand from Table 83. Based on a review of the County's CIP status report, no capacity -expanding projects for the wastewater facilities were funded directly from the general fund appropriations since 2001. All recent capacity - expanding wastewater projects have been funded through the County's GO bonds. As shown in Table 89, the estimated annual principal and interest payments on the current outstanding debt for wastewater over the past five years was $19.2 trillion. HAWAII COUNTYUNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 96 M Table 89 WASTEWATER GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, 2001 `.r Annual GO Bond Debt Service $24,921,138 Annual Debt Service $3,837,855 Years 5 Source: Annual debt service based on 2004-05 debt service from Hawai'i County, 2005-06 Annual Operating Budget, June 2006; wastewater share of debt from Table 96. An analysis of budgetary and tax data indicates that vacant and agricultural properties within the County generate 32.5 percent of property tax revenues, and property taxes accounted for 66.5 percent of general fund revenues. Using these percentages, the credit for past property tax payments is $95 per SFE, as shown in Table 90. Table 90 WASTEWATER PAST PROPERTY TAX CREDIT Percent of General Fund from Property Taxes, FY 2005-06 66.5% Percent of Property Taxes from Vacant/Ag. Land, 2006 32.5% Percent of Wastewater Credit for Past Property Tax Payments 21.6% Total General Fund Capacity Funding, 2000-2005 $19,189,276 Net Vacant/Ag. Land Share of Past Capital Cost $4,145,499 Wastewater Capacity (GPD) 9,970,000 Past Property Tax Credit per GPD $0.42 GPD per SFE 230 Past Property Tax Credit per SFE $95 Source: Percent of general fund from property taxes from Hawaii County, 2005-06 Annual Operating Budget, June2006; percent of property taxes from undeveloped/agricultural land from Hawai'i County Real Property Tax Administrator, June 1, 2006; general fund capacity funding from Table 89; gallons per day per SFE from Table 83. A system -wide wastewater impact fee that reflects the adjusted value of the existing wastewater treatment facility results in a fee of $3,785 per SFE, as shown in Table 91. Table 91 TER NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT Wastewater Facility Cost per SFE $4,550 Debt Credit per SFE $670 Property Tax Credit per SFE $95 Net Cost net SFE $3,785 Source: Wastewater facility cost from Table 87; debt credit from Table 88; and property tax credit from Table 90. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 97 Maximum Fee Schedule The maximum wastewater impact fees that may be charged by the Hawaii County, based on the methodology, data and assumptions used in this report, are shown in Table 92. The County has the option of charging single-family homes a flat rate per unit or a variable rate based on dwelling unit size. Table 92 WASTEWATER NET COST Less than 1,000 sq. ft. 0.97 $3,785 $3,672 1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft. 1.03 $3,785 $3,899 1,500 - 1,999 sq. ft. 1.07 $3,785 $4,050 2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft. 1.13 $3,785 $4,277 3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft. 1.20 $3,785 $4,542 4,000 sq. ft. or more 1.28 $3,785 $4,845 Single -Family (flat rate) 1.00 $3,785 $3,785 Multi -Family 0.79 $3,785 $2,990 Hotel/Motel 0.47 $3,785 $1,779 Nonresidential, 5/8" x 3/4" Meter 1.00 $3,785 $3,785 Nonresidential, 1" Meter 2.50 $3,785 $9,463 Nonresidential, 1-1/2" Meter 5.00 $3,785 $18,926 Nonresidential, 2" Meter 8.00 $3,785 $30,281 Nonresidential, 3" Meter 16.00 $3,785 $60,563 Nonresidential, 4" Meter 25.00 $3,785 $94,630 Nonresidential, 6" Meter 50.00 $3,785 $189,259 Nonresidential, 8" Meter 80.00 $3,785 $302,814 Nonresidential, 10" Meter 145.00 $3,785 $548,851 Source. Residential SFEs per unit from Table 84; nonresidential SFEs per meter from Table 83 net cost per SFE from Table 91. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 98 Capital Improvement Plan Funding of $92.1 million is proposed for wastewater infrastructure improvements in the County's 2005- 06 to 2010-2011 capital improvements program (CIP). Impact fees may only be used for capacity - expanding improvements for facilities or equipment that expand the current capacity of wastewater processing or increase the volume of wastewater collection or disposal unless they are funded through assessments or by developers. A detailed breakdown of each project component cost was not available; consequently, the identification of eligible projects is preliminary and subject to verification. Eligible improvements appear to account for $24.0 million of the total CIP costs. The current list of eligible improvements from the six-year CIP is shown in Table 93. Improvements are currently planned only for two of the five existing systems. In addition, improvements are planned that would create three new wastewater systems. Fees should not be implemented in the three existing systems with no planned improvements until eligible improvements are identified. Table 93 WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Source. County of Hawaii, Capital Budgetand Six Year Capital Improvements Program, June 2006. HAWAI'I COUNrYUNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 99 Project.- Wastewater Om Impact Fee Kalanianaole Interceptor Sewer Rehab Hilo WWTP $6,000,000 Wailoa SPS Renovation Hilo WWTP $2,000,000 Modify HWWTP Digester Hilo WWTP $5,800,000 $5,800,000 Ainako Aina-Nani Collector Sewer Hilo WWTP $3,700,000 Kilohana Sewer Improvement District Hilo WWTP $3,250,000 Puainako Sewer Improvement District Hilo WWTP $15,100,000 Pihonua Collector Sewer Hilo WWTP $2,200,000 Puueo Collector Sewer Hilo WWTP $2,800,000 Reed's Island Collector Sewer Hilo WWTP $1,100,000 Replace Wailuku and Puueo Bridge Lines Hilo WWTP $2,300,000 Ainako Collector Sewer Hilo WWTP $2,200,000 Queen Liliuokalani Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement Kealakehe WWTP $8,800,000 $8,800,000 Abandon Emma SPS Kealakehe WWTP $3,450,000 N Kona Sewer Improvement District Kealakehe WWTP $11,100,000 Honokohau SPS and FM Kealakehe WWTP $2,500,000 Lono Lana Collector Sewer Kealakehe WWTP $3,300,000 Replace Kealakehe WWTP Lagoon Liners Kealakehe WWTP $3,300,000 Lunapule Collector Sewer Kealakehe WWTP $420,000 Hualalai Interceptor Sewer Kealakehe WWTP $2,200,000 $2,200,000 Alii Kai Collector Sewer Kealakehe WWTP $3,300,000 Honokaa Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement New, WWTP $3,600,000 $3,600,000 Naalehu and Pahala Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement 2 New Stand alone $3,630,000 $3,630,000 Total $92,050,000 $24,030,000 Source. County of Hawaii, Capital Budgetand Six Year Capital Improvements Program, June 2006. HAWAI'I COUNrYUNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 99 Fm 09 this page intentionally left blank HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2006, Page 100 APPENDIX A: ROADINVENTORY r^ PART III: APPENDICES APPENDIX A: ROAD INVENTORY Table 94 IOR ROAD HAWAII COUNTYUNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 101 Kanoelehua Ave Kamehameaha Ave to Hualani St 4 0.58 2.32 2.32 23,631 26,000 13,706 15,080 Kanoelehua Ave Hualani St to Lankikaula 4 0.48 1.92 1.92 31,965 26,000 15,343 12,480 Kanoelehua Ave Lankikaula to Puainako 4 0.83 3.32 3.32 30,776 26,000 25,544 21,580 Kanoelehua Ave Puainako to Kilauea 4 1.90 7.60 7.60 31,756 26,000 60,336 49,400 Volcano Rd Kilauea to Keeau-Pahoa Rd 4 2.87 11.48 11.48 34,446 26,000 98,860 74,620 Hawaii Belt Rd Hualalai Rd to Nani Kailua Dr 2 0.43 0.86 0.86 23,503 13,000 10,106 5,590 Hawaii Belt Rd Nani Kailua Dr to Q Kaahumanu Hwy 2 1.07 2.14 2.14 24,046 13,000 25,729 13,910 Hawaii Belt Rd Mud Ln to W Waimea LIB 2 4.43 8.86 8.86 14,196 13,000 62,888 57,590 Kawaihae Rd Kamamalu St to Mamalahoa Hwy 2 0.56 1.12 1.12 18,781 13,000 10,517 7,280 Kawaihae Rd Mamalahoa Hwy to Laelae Rd 2 0.90 1.80 1.80 16,847 13,000 15,162 11,700 Kawaihae Rd Laelae Rd to Kohala Mountain Rd 2 1.17 2.34 2.34 13,361 13,000 15,632 15,210 Kawaihae Rd Kohala Mt Rd to Akulani St 2 0.50 1.00 1.00 8,700 13,000 4,350 6,500 Kawaihae Rd Akulani St to Kawaihae Rd 2 7.41 14.82 14.82 7,672 13,000 56,850 96,330 Q. Kaahumanu Hy Kawaihae Rd to Waikoloa Rd 2 7.98 15.96 15.96 10,393 13,000 82,936 103,740 ,,,... Q. Kaahumanu Hy Waikoloa Rd to Keahole Air. Rd 2 18.03 36.06 36.06 12,403 13,000 223,626 234,390 Q. Kaahumanu Hy Keahole Air. Rd to Kealakehe Pwy Rd 2 4.52 9.04 9.04 20,839 13,000 94,192 58,760 Q. Kaahumanu Hy Kealakehe Pwy Rd to Palani Rd 2 2.27 4.54 4.54 25,080 13,000 56,932 29,510 Kawaihae Rd Q. Kaahumanu to Kawaihae Wharf 2 1.50 3.00 13,000 19,500 State Road Subtotal, Primary Arterial 57.43 128.18 125.18 872,711 833,170 Volcano Rd Keeau-Pahoa Rd to Huina St 2 3.04 6.08 6.08 14,227 13,000 43,250 39,520 Volcano Rd Huina St to South Pszyk 2 5.01 10.02 10.02 10,789 13,000 54,053 65,130 Volcano Rd South Pszyk to Wright Rd 2 11.71 23.42 23.42 5,451 13,000 63,831 152,230 Volcano Rd Wright Rd to Volcano NP 2 2.00 4.00 4.00 3,273 13,000 6,546 26,000 Volcano Rd Volcano NP Rd to Mauna Loa Rd 2 2.31 4.62 4.62 2,576 13,000 5,951 30,030 Volcano Rd Mauna Loa Rd to Ninole Rd 2 25.76 51.52 51.52 1,861 13,000 47,939 334,880 Volcano Rd Ninole Rd to Konohiki St 2 9.46 18.92 18.92 2,089 13,000 19,762 122,980 Volcano Rd Konohiki St to Hookena Bch Rd 2 35.15 70.30 70.30 3,012 13,000 105,872 456,9501 Volcano Rd Hookena Bch Rd to Ke-Ala-O-Keawe 2 2.50 5.00 5.00 4,939 13,000 12,348 32,500 Volcano Rd Ke-Ala-O-Keawe Rd to Koa Rd 2 5.55 11.10 11.10 8,811 13,000 48,901 72,150 Volcano Rd Koa Rd to Road to Napoopoo 2 1.05 2.10 2.10 12,859 13,000 13,502 13,650 Kalanianaole St Kalanianaole to Kamehameha Ave 2 0.71 1.42 1.42 15,879 13,000 11,274 9,230 Kamehameha Ave Kamehameha Ave to Manono St 4 0.42 1.68 1.68 19,647 26,000 8,252 10,920 Kamehameha Ave Manono St to Hawaii Belt Rd Junct 4 0.12 0.48 0.48 28,676 26,000 3,441 3,120 Bayfront HWY Hawaii Belt Rd Junction to Pauahi St 2 0.45 0.90 0.90 28,676 13,000 12,904 5,850 Bayfront HWY Pauahi St to Waianuenue Ave 2 0.62 1.24 1.24 11,114 13,000 6,891 8,060 Hawaii Belt Rd Waianuenue Ave to Hau St 2 0.82 1.64 1.64 15,700 13,000 12,874 10,660 Hawaii Belt Rd Hau St to Road to Papaikou 2 3.18 6.36 6.36 14,128 13,000 44,927 41,340 HAWAII COUNTYUNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 101 HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDSASSESSMENT-IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 102 ;,treet Name From/To Ln Miles Total Count AADT Capacity VMT VNIC Hawaii Belt Rd Rd to Papaikou to Kulaimano Rd 2 3.48 6.96 6.96 10,472 13,000 36,443 45,240 Hawaii Belt Rd Kulaimano Rd to Akaka Falls Rd 2 3.37 6.74 6.74 8,394 13,000 28,288 43,810 Hawaii Belt Rd Akaka Falls Rd to Mamane St 2 28.53 57.06 57.06 6,634 13,000 189,268 370,890 Hawaii Belt Rd Mamane St to Plumeria Rd 2 1.53 3.06 3.06 6,790 13,000 10,389 19,890 Hawaii Belt Rd Plumeria Rd to Mud Ln 2 8.51 17.02 17.02 7,829 13,000 66,625 110,630 Keaau-Pahoa Rd Volcano Rd to Old Keasu-Pahoa Rd 2 1.79 3.58 3.58 16,215 13,000 29,025 23,270 Keaau-Pahoa Rd Old Keaau-Pahoa Rd to Ainaloa Blvd 2 2.95 5.90 5.90 18,154 13,000 53,554 38,350 Keaau-Pahoa Rd Ainaloa Blvd to Old Keaau-Pahoa Rd 2 2.95 5.90 5.90 11,397 13,000 33,621 38,350 Keaau-Pahoa Rd Old K -P Rd to Pahoa-Kapoho Rd 2 1.48 2.96 2.96 7,047 13,000 10,430 19,240 Mamalahoa Hwy Waimea-Kohala Air. Rd to Saddle Rd 2 4.54 9.08 9.08 7,150 13,000 32,461 59,020 Mamalahoa Hwy Saddle Rd to Waikoloa Rd 2 4.68 9.36 9.36 5,794 13,000 27,116 60,840 Mamalahoa Hwy Waikoloa Rd to Mahilani Dr 2 21.59 43.18 43.18 3,609 13,000 77,918 280,670 Mamalahoa Hwy Mahilani Dr to Mamalahoa Hwy 2 2.72 5.44 5.44 11,959 13,000 32,528 35,360 Kaumana/Saddle Hilo UB to Waenakonu 2 5.00 10.00 10.00 2,391 13,000 11,955 65,000 Kaumana/Saddle Waenakonu to Saddle Rd 2 6.50 13.00 13.00 2,262 13,000 14,703 84,500 Akoni Pule Hwy Kaahumanu Hwy to Kawaihae Wharf 2 1.50 3.00 3.00 6,916 13,000 10,374 19,500 Akoni Pule Hwy Kawaihae Wharf to Upolu Air. Rd 2 16.60 33.20 33.20 4,979 13,000 82,651 215,800 Akoni Pule Hwy Upolu Air. Rd to Hawi Rd 2 1.22 2.44 2.44 5,048 13,000 6,159 15,860 Kealakehe Pkwy Q. Kaahumanu Hwy to Keanalehu Or 2 1.18 2.36 2.36 4,059 13,000 4,790 15,340 Kealakehe Pkwy Keanalehu Dr to Palani Rd 2 1.92 3.84 13,000 24,960 State Road Subtotal, Secondary Arterial 231.90 464.88 461.04 1,280,814 3,021,720 Keaau-Pahoa Rd Pahoa-Kapoho Rd to Leilani Blvd 2 2.06 4.12 4.12 2,909 13,000 5,993 26,780 Keaau-Pahoa Rd Leilani Blvd to Kaimu-Chain of Crates 2 6.60 13.20 13.20 1,459 13,000 9,629 85,800 Keaau-Pahoa Rd Kaimu-Chain of Crates Rd to Closure 2 1.03 2.06 2.06 1,250 13,000 1,288 13,390 Keaau-Pahoa Rd Closed Rd Section (3.49 mi.) 2 13,000 Ke Ala 0 Keawe Mamalahoa Hwy to Rd to Painted Ch 2 1.08 2.16 2.16 1,300 13,000 1,404 14,040 Ke Ala 0 Keawe Rd to Painted Ch to City of Refuge 2 2.74 5.48 5.48 883 13,000 2,419 35,620 Akaka Falls Rd Hawaii Belt Rd to End 2 3.80 7.60 7.60 1,596 13,000 6,065 49,400 Mamane St Hawaii Belt Rd to Pakalana St 2 1.09 2.18 2.18 3,791 13,000 4,132 14,170 Mamane St Pakalana St to Lehua 2 0.41 0.82 0.82 5,319 13,000 2,181 5,330 Mamane St Lehua to Nienie Bridge 2 0.46 0.92 0.92 3,736 13,000 1,719 5,980 Mamane St Nienie Bridge to Waipio Valley 2 7.66 15.32 15.32 1,816 13,000 13,911 99,580 Kohala Mt Rd Kawaihae Rd to Rd to Hawaii Prep 2 0.22 0.44 0.44 1,956 13,000 430 2,860 Kohala Mt Rd Rd to Hawaii Prep to Kynnersly Rd 2 17.16 34.32 34.32 1,965 13,000 33,719 223,080 Kohala Mt Rd Kynnersly Rd to Mahukona-Niulii Rd 2 1.90 3.80 13,000 24,700 Mahukona-Niulii Hawi Rd to Kohala Hospital 2 2.27 4.54 4.54 5,411 13,000 12,283 29,510 Mahukona-Niulii Kohala Hospital to Kohala Mill Rd 2 0.98 1.96 1.96 3,933 13,000 3,854 12,740 Mahukona-Niulii Kohala Mill Rd to Road to Niulii 2 2.88 5.76 5.76 2,177 13,000 6,270 37,440 Mahukona-Niulii Road to Niulii to Pololu Valley Ent 2 1.57 3.14 3.14 385 13,000 604 20,410 Palani Rd Kaiwi St to Palani Rd 2 0.30 0.60 0.60 15,698 13,000 4,709 3,900 Palani Rd Palani Rd to Hualalai Rd 2 0.48 0.96 13,000 6,240 Palani Rd Hualalai Rd to Wailua Rd 2 0.97 1.94 1.94 10,126 13,000 9,822 12,610 Palani Rd Walua Rd to Q. Kaahumanu Ext 2 1.33 2.66 2.66 6,439 13,000 8,564 17,290 State Road Subtotal, Major Collector 56.99 113.98 109.22 128,996 740,870 HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDSASSESSMENT-IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 102 HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 103 Kapoho-Kaimu Rd Pahoa-Kal-apana to Pahoa-Kapoho Rd 2 14.50 29.00 13,000 1881buu 13,000 Kukui Rd Camp Rd/Huina Rd to Volcano 2 1.70 3.40 13,000 22,100 3.34 North Kulani Rd Huina Rd to Volcano Rd 2 1.60 3.20 13,000 20,800 Old Mamalahoa Hwy to Haawina St Wright Rd Elepaio Rd to Volcano Rd 2 1.10 2.20 13,000 14,300 23,400 Opihikao Rd Pahoa-Kalapanato Kala-pana-Kapoho 2 5.30 10.60 13,000 68,900 18,623 PohoikiRd Pahoa-Kapohoto Kala-pana-Kapoho 2 4.80 9.60 13,000 62,400 2.00 Pohakea Rd Paauilo Rd to Mamalahoa Hwy 2 2.30 4.60 13,000 29,900 Kuhio St Kalopa Rd Kalopa Mauka Rd to Mamala-hoa Hw 2 1.40 2.80 13,000 18,200 1,530 Kynnersley Rd Kohala Mntn Rd to Mahukona-Niulii 2 2.30 4.60 13,000 29,900 2.52 Hawi Rd Mahukona-Niulii Rd to End 2 0.90 1.80 1.80 3,516 13,000 3,164 11,700 11.18 Kamehameha III Manukai St to Alii Dr 2 0.30 0.60 13,000 3,900 Mamalahoa Hwy Walua Rd Ainanani St to Kuakini Hwy 2 0.50 1.00 13,000 6,500 15,674 Kaleiopapa Rd Ehukai St to Alii Dr State 2 0.20 0.40 13,000 2,600 78.60 Sunset Dr Marlin Rd to Kuakini Hwy 2 0.30 0.60 13,000 3,900 2 Hinalani St Halolani St to Mamalahoa Hwy 2 0.40 0.80 13,000 5,200 Holoholo St Kukuna St to Kaiminani Dr 2 0.60 1.20 13,000 7,800 13,000 Halekii St Mamao St to Mamalahoa Hingway 2 0.20 0.40 13,000 2,600 104.26 Kinue St Hookipa Place to Mamalahoa Hwy 2 0.20 0.40 13,000 2,600 2 S Point Access Rd Mamalahoa Hwy to South Point 2 10.70 21.40 13,000 139,100 Kamoa Rd S Pt Access to Hawaii Belt Rd 2 2.70 5.40 13,000 35,100 13,000 Kamani St Pikake St to Hawaii Belt Rd 2 0.50 1.00 13,000 6,500 yam, Maunakea Access Saddle Rd to Observatory 2 15.00 30.00 13,000 195,000 Keaau-Pahoa Rd to End State Road Subtotal, Minor Collector 6.10 67.50 135.00 1.80 3,164 877,50C HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 103 Mamalahoa Hwy Rd to Napoopoo to Kona Hosp Rd 2 1.82 3.64 3.64 15,505 13,000 28,219 23,660 Mamalahoa Hwy Kona Hospital Rd to Old Mamalahoa 2 1.67 3.34 3.34 17,443 13,000 29,130 21,710 Mamalaboa Hwy Old Mamalahoa Hwy to Haawina St 2 1.80 3.60 3.60 17,954 13,000 32,317 23,400 Mamalahoa Hwy Haawina St to Kamehameha III Rd 2 1.83 3.66 3.66 18,623 13,000 34,080 23,790 Mamalahoa Hwy Kamehameha III Rd to Kuakini Hwy 2 2.00 4.00 4.00 20,481 13,000 40,962 26,000 Kuhio St Kuhio Wharf to Kanoelehua 2 0.80 1.60 1.60 1,912 13,000 1,530 10,400 Hawaii Belt Rd Kuakini Hwy to Hualalai Rd 2 1.26 2.52 2.52 23,516 13,000 29,630 16,380 County Road Subtotal, Primary Arterial 11.18 22.36 22.36 195,868 145,340 Mamalahoa Hwy Kawaihae Rd to Waimea-Kohala Air 2 1.71 3.42 3.42 9,166 13,000 15,674 22,230 Saddle Rd Hilo UB to Mamalahoa Hwy 2 39.30 78.60 78.60 1,100 13,000 43,230 510,900 Waikoloa Rd Q. Kaahumanu Hwy to Quarry Rd 2 4.74 9.48 9.48 10,079 13,000 47,774 61,620 Waikoloa Rd Quarry Rd to Mamalahoa Hwy 2 6.38 12.76 12.76 4,649 13,000 29,661 82,940 County Road Subtotal, Secondary Arterial 52.13 104.26 104.26 136,339 677,690 Pahoa-Kapoho Rd Keaau-Pahoa to Naniwale Blvd 2 1.00 2.00 2.00 5,995 13,000 5,995 13,000 Pahoa-Kapoho Rd Naniwale Bvdto Kalapana-Kapoho 2 6.80 13.60 13.60 2,000 13,000 13,600 88,400 Keaau-Pahoa Rd Through Pahoa Town 2 1.70 3.40 3.40 5,418 13,000 9,211 22,100 �Kahakei Boulevard Keaau-Pahoa Rd to End 2 6.10 12.20 12.20 6,140 13,000 37,454 79,300 Napoopoo Rd Mamalahoa Hwy to Puu-honua Rd 2 4.40 8.80 8.80 1,255 13,000 5,522 57,200 HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 103 �treet Name From/To Lu Mile5 Total Count AADT Capacity VMT VIVIC Mamalahoa Hwy Palani Rd to Waiaha Stream 2 4.40 8.80 13,000 57,200 Mamalahoa Hwy Waiaha Stream to Kua-kini Hwy 2 4.80 9.60 13,000 62,400 Kamehameha III Or Kuakini Hwy to Kealahou village 2 1.24 2.48 2.48 10,975 13,000 13,609 16,120 Kamehameha III Dr Kealahou Village to Alii Or 2 0.24 0.48 0.48 10,985 13,000 2,636 3,120 Palani Rd Mamlahoa Hwy to Kealakaa St 4 1.53 6.12 6.12 15,454 26,000 23,645 39,780 Palani Rd Kealakaa St to Q Kaahumanu Hwy 4 1.87 7.48 7.48 17,080 26,000 31,940 48,620 Plumeria Rd Mamane St to Mamalahoa Hwy 2 0.70 1,40 1.40 3,117 13,000 2,182 9,100 Old Mamalahoa W to E junction with Hawaii Belt Rd 2 0.70 1.40 1.40 1,513 13,000 1,059 9,100 Pikake St Chia St to Mamalahoa Hwy 2 0.40 0.80 0.80 795 13,000 318 5,200 Kuakini Hwy Palani Rd to Kaiwi St 2 0.40 0.80 13,000 5,200 Kalw! St Q. Kaahumanu to Kuakini Hwy 2 0.30 0.60 0.60 10,738 13,000 3,221 3,900 Aloha Kona Dr Hienaloli Rd to Hawaii Belt Rd 2 0.90 1.80 13,000 11,700 Kealakaa St Uluao St to Palani Rd 2 0.50 1.00 1.00 4,743 13,000 2,372 6,500 Loloa Dr Holo St to Mamalahoa Hwy 2 0.50 1.00 1.00 1,256 13,000 628 6,500 Palani Rd/Alii Or Kuakini Hwy to Rd to Wharf 2 0.14 0.28 0.28 18,610 13,000 2,605 1,820 Palani Rd/Alii Dr Rd to Wharf to Kailua-Kona 2 2.26 4.52 4.52 15,358 13,000 34,709 29,380 Alii Dr Kailua-Kona UB to Hualalai Rd 2 0.76 1.52 1.52 11,175 13,000 8,493 9,880 Alii Dr Hualalai Rd to Walua Rd 2 0.45 0.90 0.90 15,358 13,000 6,911 5,850 Alii Or Walua Rd to Kaiolu Rd 2 0.98 1.96 1.96 14,524 13,000 14,234 12,740 Alii Or Kaiolu Rd to Royal Poincana Dr 2 0.73 1.46 1.46 14,494 13,000 10,581 9,490 Alii Or New Con. to Kamehameha III Rd 2 0.30 0.60 0.60 8,812 13,000 2,644 3,900 Alii Dr Kamehameha III Rd to end 2 2.67 5.34 5.34 4,509 13,000 12,039 34,710 Hualalai Rd Alii Dr to Kuakini 2 0.20 0.40 0.40 7,577 13,000 1,515 2,600 Hualalai Rd Kuakini to Hawaii Belt 2 1.20 2.40 2.40 6,478 13,000 7,774 15,600 Lako Rd Kuakini Hwy to End 2 0.50 1.00 1.00 2,497 13,000 1,249 6,500 Kaiminani Dr Mamalahoa to Queen Kaahumanu 2 3.60 7.20 7.20 6,160 13,000 22,176 46,800 Henry St Kuakini Hwy to Hawaii Belt Rd 4 0.20 0.80 0.80 14,824 26,000 2,965 5,200 Paniolo Ave Paniolo Ave - Waikoloa Rd to End 4 1.70 6.80 6.80 9,910 26,000 16,847 44,200 Lindsey Rd Hokuula Rd to Mamalahoa Hwy 2 0.40 0.80 0.80 1,457 13,000 583 5,200 Old Mamalahoa Uikeoni St to Hawaii Belt Rd 2 0.45 0.90 0.90 1,923 13,000 865 5,850 Kamamalu St Mamalahoa Hwy to Hiiaka St 2 0.70 1.40 1.40 3,136 13,000 2,195 91100 Kamehameha Av Waianuenue Ave to Hilo Bay Hwy 4 1.10 4.40 26,000 28,600 Keawe Waianuenue to Kilauea 2 0.30 0.60 0.60 8,764 13,000 2,629 3,900 Kilauea Ave Keawe St. to Ponahawai St. 2 0.07 0.14 0.14 9,640 13,000 675 910 Kilauea Ave Ponahawai St to Kukuau 4 0.13 0.52 0.52 12,023 26,000 1,563 3,380 Kilauea Ave Kukuau St. to Aala Lane 4 0.10 0.40 0.40 14,327 26,000 1,433 2,600 Kilauea Ave Aala Lane to Mohouli St 4 0.33 1.32 1.32 17,920 26,000 5,914 8,560 Kilauea Ave Mohouli St. to Lanikaula 4 0.53 2.12 2.12 26,805 26,000 14,207 13,780 Kilauea Ave Lanikaula to Kawili St 4 0.42 1.68 26,000 10,920 Kilauea Ave Kawili St. to Puainako St 4 0.70 2.80 2.80 14,857 26,000 10,400 18,200 Kilauea Ave Puainako St. to E. Kahaopea St. 4 0.35 1.40 1.40 10,196 26,000 3,569 9,100 Kilauea Ave Kahaopea to Kawailani St. 4 0.35 1.40 26,000 9,100 Kilauea Ave Kawailani St. to E. Pala! St. 4 0.35 1.40 1.40 6,403 26,000 2,241 9,100 Kilauea Ave Palai St, to Haihai St. 4 0.35 1.40 1.40 6,403 26,000 2,241 9,100 Kilauea Ave Haihai St. to Kanoelehua 2 0.50 1.00 1.00 8,566 13,000 4,283 6,500 HAWAII COUNTYVNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 104 M NO Kalanianaole St Kalanianaole St Kalanianaole St Kalanianaole St Kalanianaole St Kalanianaole St Kalanianaole St Puainako St Puainako St Puainako St Puainako St Puainako St Kinoole St Kinoole St Kinoole St Kinoole St Kinoole St Kinoole St Waianuenue Ave Waianuenue Ave Waianuenue Ave Waianuenue Ave Waianuenue Ave Kaumana Dr Kaumana Dr Kaumana Dr Kaumana Dr Kekuanaoa St Kekuanaoa St Komohana St Komohana St Komohana St Komohana St Haihai St Haihai St Ainaola Dr Ainaola Dr Kawailani St Kawailani St Kawailani St Kawailani St Kawailani St Iwalani St ` w IKawili Kuhio St. to Kauhane Ave. 2 0.10 0.20 0.20 11,004 13,000 1,100 1,300 Kauhane Ave. to Baker Ave 2 0.38 0.76 0,76 6,940 13,000 2,637 4,940 Baker Ave. and Onekahakaha St. 2 0.50 1.00 1.00 6,730 13,000 3,365 6,500 Onekahakaha St. to Kamokuna St. 2 0.27 0.54 0.54 4,897 13,000 1,322 3,510 Kamokuna St to Koloa St 2 0.56 1.12 1.12 3,406 13,000 1,907 7,280 Koloa St. to Oeoe St. 2 0.12 0.24 0.24 2,550 13,000 306 1,560 Oeoe St. to Lehia Park Gate 2 1.00 2.00 2.00 1,311 13,000 1,311 13,000 Railroad Ave to Kanoelehua Ave 2 0.56 1.12 1.12 8,223 13,000 4,605 7,280 Kanoelehua Ave to Kilauea Ave 2 0.17 0.34 0.34 18,119 13,000 3,080 2,210 Kilauea Ave to Kinoole St 2 0.10 0.20 0.20 11,840 13,000 1,184 1,300 Kinoole St to Kawili SUlwalani St 2 0.75 1.50 1.50 9,497 13,000 7,123 9,750 Kawili St/Iwalani St to Komohana St 2 0.60 1.20 1.20 7,523 13,000 4,514 7,800 Waianuenue Ave to Ponahawai St 2 0.37 0.74 0.74 4,688 13,000 1,735 4,810 Ponanawai St to Mohouli St 2 0.71 1.42 1.42 12,687 13,000 9,008 9,230 Mohouli St to Kawili St 2 0.74 1.48 1.48 14,242 13,000 10,539 9,620 Kawili St to Puainako St 2 0.63 1.26 13,000 8,190 Puainako St to Kawailani St 2 0.70 1.40 1.40 9,776 13,000 6,843 9,100 Kawailani St to Haihai St 2 0.69 1.38 1.38 4,314 13,000 2,977 8,970 Kamehameha Ave to Komohana St 2 1.00 2.00 2.00 13,211 13,000 13,211 13,000 Komohana St to Kaumana Dr 4 0.18 0.72 26,000 4,680 Kaumana Dr to Puuhina St 2 0.17 0.34 0.34 8,504 13,000 1,446 2,210 Hilo Hospital to Lahi St 2 0.96 1.92 1.92 2,712 13,000 2,604 12,480 Lahi St to Akolea St 2 0.43 0.86 0.86 1,248 13,000 537 5,590 Waianuenue Ave to Ainako Ave 4 0.78 3.12 3.12 7,865 26,000 6,135 20,280 Ainako Ave. to Akolea St 2 0.96 1.92 1.92 9,178 13,000 8,811 12,480 Akolea St to Wilder Ave 2 0.32 0.64 0.64 2,320 13,000 742 4,160 Wilder to Country Club Dr 2 1.10 2.20 2.20 1,069 13,000 1,176 14,300 Kanoelehua Ave to Manono St 2 0.37 0.74 0.74 12,522 13,000 4,633 4,810 Manono St to Kilauea Ave 2 0.44 0.88 0.88 15,073 13,000 6,632 5,720 Wainuenue to Punahele 2 0.10 0.20 0.20 11,774 13,000 1,177 1,300 Punahele to Puainako 2 1.80 3.60 3.60 13,311 13,000 23,960 23,400 Puainako St to Ainaloa Dr 2 1.00 2.00 2.00 5,836 13,000 5,836 13,000 Ainoloa Dr. to Haihai St. 2 0.40 0.80 13,000 5,200 Kilauea Ave to Ainaola Dr 2 1.69 3.38 3.38 6,913 13,000 11,683 21,970 Ainaola Dr to Kupulau St 2 0.86 1.72 1.72 2,672 13,000 2,298 11,180 Kawailani St to Haihai St 2 1.05 2.10 2.10 7,255 13,000 7,618 13,650 Haihai St to Kupulau Rd 2 1.10 2.20 2.20 3,387 13,000 3,726 14,300 Kanoelehua Ave to Kilauea Ave 2 0.13 0.26 0.26 9,163 13,000 1,191 1,690 Kilauea Ave to Kinoole St 2 0.10 0.20 0.20 12,696 13,000 1,270 1,300 Kinoole St to Iwalani St 2 0.75 1.50 1.50 11,843 13,000 8,882 9,750 Iwalani St to Komohana St 2 0.60 1.20 1.20 8,885 13,000 5,331 7,800 Komohana St to Kupulau Rd 2 1.12 2.24 2.24 7,587 13,000 8,497 14,560 Haihai St to Kawili St 2 1.40 2.80 2.80 1,291 13,000 1,807 18,200 Iwalani St to Manono St 2 1.00 2.00 2.00 11,655 13,000 11,655 13,000 Manono St to Kamehameha 2 0.73 1.46 1.46 8,862 13,000 6,469 9,490 HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 105 E Ainako Ave Kaumana Or to Waianuenue Mohouli St Kilauea Ave to Komohana Akolea Rd Waianuenue Ave to Kaumana Lanikaula St Kanoelehua Ave to Mohouli St Railroad Ave Leilani St to Kahaopea Stainback Hwy S Hilo to Kanoelehua Ave County Road Subtotal, Major Collector Major County Roads 2 1.50 3.00 3.00 3,710 13,000 5,565 19,500 2 1.10 2.20 2.20 9,749 13,000 10,724 14,300 2 1.80 3.60 3.60 697 13,000 1,255 23,400 2 1.80 3.60 3.60 5,185 13,000 9,333 23,400 2 1.20 2.40 2.40 7,284 13,000 8,741 15,600 2 1.50 3.00 13,000 19,500 2 0.30 0.60 0.60 5,696 13,000 1,709 3,900 99.99 221.92 187.66 599,138 1,442,480 348.54 314.28 931,344 2,265,5 Source: Major roads and classifications from Hawaii County General Plan, Infrastructure Assessment, 2004; segment miles from General Plan Infrastructure Assessment with additional segments scaled by Duncan Associates; annual average daily traffic counts (AADT) from State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation. Highways Division, 2002 and 2004; capacity from Table 18. HAWAII COUNTYVNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 106 APPENDIX B: GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT e `w - APPENDIX B: GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT Hawai`i County has utilized General Obligation (GO) debt to finance public safety, highway and street, solid waste disposal, wastewater, culture and recreation, other miscellaneous capital projects. The County does not issue separate GO bonds for each type of capital project, and it is not possible to precisely identify the amount of outstanding GO debt attributable to certain departments or types of projects. In 2005-06, total debt service for the County's general obligation bonds was approximately $17.8 million. The County's current outstanding GO bonds and their original issue amounts are shown in Table 95. The original debt issues were allocated among departments based on an analysis of the types of projects funded by debt, the ordinance authorizing debt issues, the capital project status report, and information provided by County staff, A portion of outstanding debt was issued for projects for which details are not available. 1993 1998 1999A 19996 2001 Table 95 ORIGINAL GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT BY DEPARTMENT OtherRoads Parks Fire/EMS Police Solid Waste Wastewater $2,083,100 $5,877,875 $3,099,283 $0 $18?35,000 $31,411,000 $11,966,090 $10,281,000 $6,424,445 $3,382,000 $1$56,000 $1,070,000 2003 $16,998,000 $9,040,000 $2,500,000 $1800,000 2004A $30,000,000 2004B $4,856,507 $5,102,530 2004C 2004D $195,575 $288,034 $613,367 $1,677,700 $775,600 $950,000 $6,536,500 $16,000,000 $7 $1,020,000 $4,750,000 $802,262 $7,686,724 $202,000 $3,417,000 $259,200 Notes: 1993: $20,000,000 for projects from FY91 to FY93 capital budget; $10.000,000 Water Supply Project; $3,320.000 to refund 1980 issue for which details are not available; $10,325.000 to refund 1986 issue for which details are not available; $9,625,000 to refund 1989 issue which included $10,200.000 for Hilo sewer plant. $3,500,000 for Old Kona Airport Gym, and $1,400,000 for Kealekehe wastewater treatment plant; and $29,315,000 to refund 1990 issue for wastewater and landfill projects. 1998: $775.600 for wastewater systems in Paauilo. Ookala, and Paauhau. 1999A: $30,000,000 for 1999 Hawaii County Bill 129. 1999B: $18,835,000 to refund 1978 issue which contained unknown projects funded in prior issues from 1949 to 1977. 2001: $8,000,000 for a radio communication system, $8,000,000 for water supply projects; and $7,000.000 for unidentified capital projects from FY99 to FY01 capital budget. 2003: $36.310.000 for projects identified in 2003 Hawaii County Bill 128. 2004A: $30,000,000 for projects identified in 2004 Hawaii County Bill 254 (Ordinance 04 59). 2004B: Refund $30,000,000 for projects from FY1994 to FY1996 capital budget. 2004C: $202.000 to refund 1977 issue for Kulaimano sewage system. $411,000 to refund 1981 issue for water storage and transmission, $3,006,000 to refund 1997 issue for acquisition and reconstruction of J.C. Penney's facility, and $1,677,700 to refund 2001 issue for East Hawaii police detention facility. 2004D: Waterline replacement project. 2004ID: Water system for Kona Coastview. Source: Hawaii County Finance Department. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 107 Table 1 shows the share of the original debt issue attributed to certain departments or types of projects based on the analysis of the original debt issue. Table 96 OF GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT BY DEPARTMENT 1993 2.4% 6.8% 3.6% 0.0% 21.0% 36.2% 13.8% 16.2% 1000/ 1998 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 1999A 34.2% 21.4% 11.3% 4.5% 3.6% 3.2% 21.8% 0.0% 1000/ 1999B 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100% 2001 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 69.6% 30.4% 100°I 2003 46.7% 24.9% 6.9% 5.0% 0.0% 2.8% 13.1% 0.6% 100% 2004A 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 20048 24.8% 26.1% 1.0% 1.5% 3.1% 4.1% 39.4% 0.0% 100% 2004C 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 31.7% U% 3.8% 64.5% 0.0% 100% 2004D 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 20041D 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% Total 25.2% 10.4% 3.6% 2A% 7.8% 15.4% 19.8% 15.8% 100% Source: Allocation based on department share of each original bond issue from Table 95 The County currently has $390.3 million in outstanding GO debt. Table 97 shows the estimated current GO debt by department based on the current outstanding principal balance for each GO Bond issue. In addition, the $19.6 million of outstanding debt related to the unknown portion of the original debt issues were allocated among the departments based on their share of the total outstanding bond issues. Table 97 OBLIGATION DEBT BY DEPARTMENT 1993 $1,085,400 $3,075,300 $1,628,100 $0 1998 $0 $0 $0 $0 1999A $9,049,320 $5,662,440 $2,989,980 $1190,700 19998 $0 $0 $0 $0 2001 $0 $0 $0 $0 2003 $16,956,770 $9,041,190 $2,505,390 $1815,500 2004A $30,000,000 $0 $0 $0 20048 $4,847,160 $5,101,245 $195,450 $293175 2004C $0 $0 $0 $1,678,420 2004D $0 $0 $0 $0 $9597,250 $16,371,450 $6,241,050 $0 $699,300 $0 $952,560 $846,720 $5,768,280 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,416,400 $0 $1,016,680 $4,756,610 $0 $0 $0 $605,895 $801,345 $7,700,730 $0 $201,199 $3,415,082 $0 $259,200 $0 $7 $6,733 $217 Subtotal $61,938,650 $22,880,175 $7,318,920 $4977,795 $11,055,705 $24,083387 $43,298,152 $19,577,91 01 ID Total $68,846,141 $25,431,806 $8,135,137 $5,532926 $12,288,654 $26,769,202 $48,126,827 $195,130,694 Source: Current outstanding principal from Hawaii County Finance Department, August 2005; department allocation based on share of original bond issue from Table 96. ! D HAWAVI COUNMINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 108 APPENDIX C: WRMOGRAPHIC DATA N APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA For the impact fee analysis, it is important to know both the existing amount of residential development and the number of residents associated with each dwelling unit. The first step is to compile an estimate of existing dwelling units by type in Hawaii. This is done by combining 2000 Census counts of housing units with building permit data on the number of dwelling units constructed since the census enumeration. As shown in Table 98, it is estimated that Hawaii County currently has about 58,772 single-family units and 17,153 multi -family units, for a total of about 75,925 existing dwelling units. Table 98 DWELLING UNITS Single -Family Detached 48,618 HOUSING TYPE 10,154 58,772 3.097 17.153 Source: 2000 units from the U.S. Census; 2000 to 2005 building permits by housing type from Hawaii County. An important input into the impact fee calculations is the number of persons associated with dwelling units of various housing types. The best available data source on average household size in Hawaii County is the 2000 U.S. Census. As shown in Table 99 below, average household size varies by housing type, ranging from 2.26 persons per multi -family unit to 2.87 persons per single-family detached unit. Table 99 AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY HOUSING TYPE, 2000 Single -Family Detached Multi -Family 124,022 21,904 43,281 9,704 2.87 I 2.26 All u�i, T.,. 145.928 52.985 2.75 Source: 2000 U.S. Census for the County of Hawaii, Summary File 3 (weighted -in-6 sample data). In addition, data on the average household size of single-family detached units by number of bedrooms is available from 2000 Census five -percent sample data for geographic areas containing at least 100,000 residents. As can be seen in Table 100, single-family average household size in Hawaii County is strongly related to the number of bedrooms in the dwelling unit. The average number of residents in an occupied single-family detached dwelling unit increases from 2.55 for a two-bedroom home to 4.22 for a home with five or more bedrooms. The overall average single-family household size derived from the 5 -percent sample (2.92) is slightly higher than the figure derived from the 1 -in - 6 sample data for Hawaii County (2.87). HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 109 Table 100 :HOLD SIZE BY BEDROOMS Up to Two 1,025 40,522 15,918 2.55 Three 1,327 60,338 20,293 2.97 Four 322 17,788 5,095 3.49 Five or more 94 6.329 1,501 4.22 Source: 2000 U.S. Census Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS)5% sample data for County of Hawaii PUMA 00200. While the only measure of dwelling unit size recorded by the Census Bureau is bedrooms, it is recommended that the fees be based on square footage rather than number of bedrooms. Although some jurisdictions charge impact fees on the basis of bedrooms, it can be an administrative challenge to determine the number of bedrooms when there is a financial incentive to disguise bedrooms as something else (a den or storage room, for example). An alternative is to translate bedrooms into size categories. To determine a relationship between the unit square footage, bedrooms and household population in 400 Hawaii County, the consultant compiled data on all 630 single-family homes listed for sale in the County from 3.50 the National Association of Realtors website $ 300 (www.realtor.com) on October 19, 2005. These on-line IN listings give square footage and the number of 32 2.50 R2,00 bedrooms for each home offered for sale. A variable for average household size was added, consisting of the average household size multipliers by housing type and 150 e number of bedrooms derived from 2000 U.S. Census 1.00 sample data. Regression analysis was then performed to determine the relationship between unit size in square 0 50 feet and persons residing in the unit. Both linear and 0.00 logarithmic regressions were performed. The linear regression was statistically significant, with the linear equation accounting for 35 percent of the variation.' Figure 12 RESIDENTS BY UNIT SIZE 500 1,500 2,500 3,500 4,500 Single Family Unit Size (S4 FL) The resulting linear equation (shown in Figure 12) shows the relationship between household size and dwelling unit size for single-family unit. The graphed relationship shows that there is a strong correlation between household size and unit size, and that the larger the unit the more people it is likely to contain. As can be seen in Table 101, a single-family detached unit with less than 1,000 square feet has an average of 2.78 persons, while a unit with 4,000 square feet averages 3.68 residents. ' The linear equation for single-family units is y = 0.000223 * x + 2.6732 (r -square = 0.354597), where x is square feet of living area and y is household size. HAWArI COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 110 01 W SINGLE-FAMILY Less than 1,000 sq. ft. 1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft. 1,500 - 1,999 sq. ft. 2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft. 3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft. Table 101 SEHOLD SIZE BY SQUARE FEET 500 2.78 1,250 2.95 1,750 3.06 2,500 3.23 3,500 3.45 Source: Average household size is derived by substituting the midpoint for x and solving for y in the equation described in the preceding text. Existing nonresidential floor area and corresponding land use codes for existing parcels of land in Hawaii County was provided by the County Tax Assessor. The building square footage for existing nonresidential development in Hawaii County was estimated by summing the total square footage for all applicable parcels. Table 102 summarizes the nonresidential development in Hawaii County by land use. Table 102 4TIAL LAND Hospital Hotel/Motel 3,742,488 Nursing Home Commercial/Retail 5,306,676 Religious Institution General Office 3,766,361 School Medical Office 268,618 Industrial Other Institutional 784.522 Hospital L40„ ] r 4 Nursing Home 215.819 Religious Institution 401,833 School 608,152 Industrial 417,246 Warehouse 7,956,165 Mini -Warehouse 248,253 Total Nonresidential Square Footage _ 23,961,507 Source: Hawai'i County, October 5. 2005; data derived from tax records; data as of January 1, 2005 assessment date for 2005 tax year. HAWAPI COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 111 this page intentionally left blank HAWAII COUNTYUNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 112 APPENDIX D: FUNCTIONAL POPULATION OR APPENDIX D: FUNCTIONAL One approach for estimating the service demands of various land use types on public safety facilities is known in impact fee literature as "functional population." Functional population will then be converted into "equivalent dwelling units." Tht equivalent dwelling unit, or EDU, represents the impact of a typical single-family dwelling on theI demand for public safety services. To a large extent, the demand for public safety The functional population concept is analogou It represents the number of "full-time equivale certain extent, however, the demand for public regardless of whether it is occupied, as well as public safety services during the nighttime hou attributed solely to residential development. The residential functional population is consid is assumed that people spend one-half of their from home accounts for working, shopping at. residential development essentially distributes residential and nonresidential development. F calculated by first dividing average household then dividing by the equivalent persons per sir The equivalent dwelling units for single-family shown in Table 103. Less than 1,000 sq, ft. 2.78 1,000 - 1,499 sq. ft. 2.95 li 1,499 - 1,999 sq. ft. 3.06 2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft. 3.23 3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft. 3.45 Single -Family Detached 2.87 Multi -Family 2.26 ervices is proportional to the presence of people. to the concept of "full-time equivalent" employees. C' people present at the site of a land use. To a afety services is related to real property itself, the presence of people. Consequently, the need for when most people are at home, should not be rably simpler than the nonresidential component. It ime at home. The other half of the time spent away I other away -from -home activities. This factor for he cost of public safety facilities evenly between it residential uses, then, equivalent dwelling units are ize in half to determine equivalent persons per unit, ;le -family unit to determine equivalent dwelling units. and multi -family units and hotel/motel rooms are 103 UNITS 0.50 1.39 0.97 0.50 1.48 1.03 0.50 1.53 1.06 0.50 1.62 1.13 0.50 1.73 1.20 0.50 1.44 1.00 0.50 1.13 0.78 Source: Average household size for single-faily detached from Tables 99 and 101 and average household size for multi -family from Table 99; hotel/mot I rooms based on one-half of average vehicle occupancy on vacation trips from U.S. Department of Trans ortation, National Household Trave/Survey, 2001; occupancy factor assumed; EDUs per unit is ratio of functional population to functional population of single-family detached unit. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRucTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 113 The functional population methodology for nonresidential uses is based on national trip generation data compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Functional population per 1,000 square feet is derived by dividing the total number of hours spent by employees and visitors during a day by 24 hours. Employees are assumed to spend eight hours per day at their place of employment. Visitors to nonresidential facilities are assumed to spend one hour per visit. The formula used to derive the nonresidential functional population estimates is summarized in Figure 13. Figure 13 Functional population/1000 sf = (employee hours/1000 sf + visitor hours/1000 sf) _ 24 hours/day Where: Employee hours/1000 sf = employees/1000 sf x hours/day Visitor hours/1000 sf = visitors/1000 sf x 1 hour/visit Visitors/1000 sf = weekday ADT/1000 sf x avg. vehicle occupancy - employees/1000 sf Weekday ADT/1000 sf = one-way average daily trips (total trip ends _ 2) Using this formula and information on trip generation rates from the ITE manual, nonresidential functional population estimates per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area were calculated. These functional population estimates were then converted into equivalent dwelling units by dividing them by the functional population pet single-family unit calculated in the preceding table. Table 104 presents the results of these calculations for four general land use categories. Table 104 UNITS Shopping Center/General Retail 1000 sq. ft. 21.47 1.80 1.96 36.69 2.18 1.51 Office/Other Institutional 1000 sq. ft. 5.51 1.14 3.31 2.97 1.23 0.85 Industrial 1000 sq. ft. 3.48 1.14 2.08 1.89 0.77 0.53 Warehouse 1000 SQ. ft. 2.48 1.14 1.28 1.55 0.49 0.34 Source. Trip rates are one-half average daily trip ends from Institute of Transportation Engineers IITE) Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003, National Household Travel Survey, 2001 for following trip purposes: "shopping' for retail, "to work' for office, industrial and warehouse, "school/church" for church and school, and "other family/personal business' for nursing home: employees per 1,000 sq. ft. derived from trip rates per employee from ITE manual (retail employees per 1,000 sq. ft. from National Association of Office and Industrial Parks, America's Future Office Space Needs, 1990 p. 22); visitors/unit and functional population calculated based on formula in Figure 13; EDUs per unit is ratio of functional population to functional population of single-family detached unit from Table 102. Total equivalent dwelling units for the Hawaii County can be determined based on existing land use data and EDU ratios for various land use categories. As shown in Table 105, the total number of Amok HAWAII COUNMiNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 114 functional population EDUs is nearly double the total number of residential units, which is not surprising given the size of the Big Island's tourism economy. Nh-� Table 105 TOTAL EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS Existing EDUs/ Total Land Use Unit Units Unit EDUs Single -Family Detached Dwelling 58,772 1.00 58,772 Multi -Family Dwelling 17,153 0.78 13,379 Hotel/Motel Room 10,513 0.47 4,941 Shopping Center/General Retail 1,000 sq. ft. 5,307 1.51 8,013 Office/Other Institutional 1,000 sq. ft. 6,291 0.85 5,347 Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. 417 0.53 221 WarohnUSe 1.000 sq. ft. 8,204 0.34 2,790 Source: Existing dwelling units from Table 98; existing hotel/motel rooms from Table 7; retail, office/institutional and industrial/utility square feet from Table 102. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 115 this page intentionally left blank HAWAel COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2066, Page 116 APPENDIX E: EXISTING PARK FACILITY INVENTORY 4. APPENDIX E: EXISTING PARK FACILITY INVENTORY Table 106 EXISTING PARK FACILITY INVENTORY � Y a C y E N U _a I✓- 7 '- O W u� V a O O a U U u �' e rn ,O 1 00== 0 0 c '- Q 0 Park Name Honoka'a Park Ho'olulu Pa hoa Nbrhd Facility Gilbert Carvalho Park Herbert Shipman Park* Herbert Shipman Park* Kailua Park* Kamehameha Park Total Subtotal, District Park Ahalanui/Maunakea Pond d Carlsmith Beach Park c v a Honaunau Boat Ramp* t Honl's Beach Park a Kahalu'u Beach Park a Kalapana Beach (Area B) Acres Keokea Beach Park J Kohanaiki Y ra La'aloa Bay Beach Park a d Leleiwi Beach Park a OG Magic Sands Beach Park m Reeds Bay Beach Park 1 Richardson Ocean Park 27.7 Bakers Beach* 1 Harry K Brown Park 2 Hawaiian Paradise Park 9 Hilo Bayfront Beach 0 0 Ho'okena Beach Park ri Honoli i Beach Park* U Isaac Hale Memorial Park o J. Kealoha Beach Park 2.3 Kahakai Park 1 Kanakea Pond 4.6 Kapa'a Beach Park 4 Kawaihae Canoe Area Total Dev.a E d 2.5 c v a ? t O a O a a c a c a d W a O Acres Acres J UO Y ra y a d 0.0 a OG N m m 1 F N U r0 27.7 27.7 1 1 2 1 9 O 0 0 0 0 ri C U U o 53.4 2.3 1 1 a Total Dev.a E 'c > 2.5 c v a ? 1.2 O a O a a c a c a d W a O Acres Acres 2 UO y d y a d 0.0 a OG N m m 1 F N U r0 27.7 27.7 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 0.9 2 56.2 53.4 2.3 1 1 1 4.6 1 4 1 3.1 1 3 5 70.9 9.2 1 6.0 1 2 1 1 8 3.2 3.2 15.8 8.0 1 2.8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3.5 3.5 1 1 10.9 10.9 1 1 2.4 2 2.0 1 1 4.7 2 6.0 6.0 3 34.9 34.9 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 3 4 18.5 18.5 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 10.6 10.6 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 251.5 179.2 6 3 0 7 5 0 4 5 20 7 6 0 3 11 9 1 0 0 5.9 5.9 2 1 6.9 2.5 1 1 1 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.7 1 4.2 4.2 2 2 1 15.0 0.0 7.1 3.0 1 2 2 109.0 0.0 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.1 0.0 0.9 0.9 1 1 2.3 2.3 1 4.6 4.6 1 1 3.1 0.0 22.9 0.0 6.0 0.0 5.2 5.2 1 8 3.2 3.2 1 1 1 2.8 2.8 1 1 26.5 2.1 1 1 1 3.5 3.5 1 1 3.6 0.0 2.4 2.4 26.3 2.0 1 1 4.7 0.0 1 1 1 1 1 HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 117 d cc d C 9 a ° O N V1 N 1 C N Y '^ m U c m N C m c L °o �= a o o W o c U. a r` O Q O W .N. tz > N N d J Kukuihaele Park Total Dev. a E c •'> E is E 0 u m= P• pa'aloa Park c c c m E w Park Name Acres Acres d ¢ ° U d w 3 m a m a 2 a > r, w m o w m m> o a y m y f Y m m U o m Kolekole Gulch Park 5.5 4.0 2 6.0 4 Malama Park 10.6 7.0 1 Mo'oheau Park 3.8 3.8 1 1 Kuhio Kalaniana'ole Park 2.8 2.8 September 14, 2006, Page 118 1 Lehia Beach Park 54.7 0.0 LeleiwiBeach Park 30.9 12.0 1 8 Mahukona Beach Park* 2.7 2.0 1 1 1 1 Mahukona Wharf* 0.4 0.4 1 Manini Point 5.6 0.0 Miloli'i Beach Park 1.4 1.4 1 1 1 1 Mokuola Island 3.1 3.1 1 1 1 Onekahakaha Beach Park 34.7 21.0 2 5 1 Pahoehoe Beach Park 1.3 1.3 1 Punalu'u Beach* 6.9 6.9 1 1 2 1 Reeds Bay Beach Park 4.1 4.1 1 Spencer Park 13.4 9.5 3 1 1 1 Whittington Beach Park 0.8 0.8 1 3 1 Lau • hoehoe Pt Beach 24.1 17.9 2 4 1 3 1 1 1 Subtotal, Beach Park 463.0 135.2 30 0 0 49 1 23 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 Arthur C. Greenwell Park 2.7 2.7 1 1 1 1 1 Clem Akina Park 4.8 4.8 1 Frank M. Santos Park 11.0 11.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Haina Park 3.6 3.6 1 1 Hakalau Veterans Park 6.1 6.1 1 1 1 2 H. Higashihara Park 5.3 5.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hawaiian Beaches Park 11.0 8.0 1 1 1 2 2 1 HI Ocean View Est. 4.0 4.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Kukuihaele Park 4.0 4.0 Kurtistown Park 6.8 3.5 1 1 Mt. View Park 3.8 3.8 1 1 P• pa'aloa Park 5.0 5.0 2 '• 6 kala Park 23.3 5.0 Glenwood Park 1.1 1.1 1 1 Honom• -Park 10.0 10.0 1 Hualani Park 4.8 4.8 1 Kaiwiki Park 5.0 5.0 1 1 Kula'imano Park 28.9 6.0 1 1 Malama Park 10.6 7.0 1 Mo'oheau Park 3.8 3.8 1 HAWAII COUNTYUNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE S 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 September 14, 2006, Page 118 C N 9 y N L r OO• 9 ,O O O N N N y C W N C1 9 c L N d C i C O li O A wO O W O 0 s o a m : « t7 N a a Park Name Total Acres Dev. Acres d m o v '-r'W •; m a rp -2 s v a aw tm- > t, W m O m w O cw m> m w c c w c w w Y w O Na'alehu Park* 6.4 6.4 1 1 5.0 0.0 Pepe'ekeo Playground* 1 1 1 2 Pa'auilo Park 3.6 3.6 1 1 1.6 1 1 Lincoln Park 2.6 P•halaPark 8.0 8.0 1 Machado Acres Park 1 1 Mohouli Park 2 1 1 2 Pana'ewa Park 6.6 6.6 1 Keikiland Playground 1 1 Lau ahoehoe Playground 2 1 2 2 Volcano Park 10.0 4.0 4.3 1 1.37 1 Kaumana Caves 4.87 1 1 2 1 Waiakea Waena Park 3.8 3.8 Liholiho Garden 0.18 1 1 2 0.0 Waiakea-Uka Park 7.7 7.7 1 1 2 Waikaumalo Park 3.4 1.0 1 1 1 2 1 4 Waikoloa Comm. Park* 22.5 4.0 1 1 1 2 1 Wainaku Playground* 5.0 5.0 4.0 1 1 1 1 Waiohinu Park 4.4 4.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Waimea Church Row Park 2.8 2.8 1.9 1 Subtotal, Comm. Park 286.6 208.6 21 8 0 13 2 1 13 13 35 14 13 5 1 3 14 1 0 1 3.0 'Ainako Park 3.0 .�- Ahualani Park 3.5 Ka'umana Lani Park 4.7 3.5 Ka'umana Playground 1.5 Kona Hillcrest Park 1.6 Kona Scenic Park 5.0 0.0 Pepe'ekeo Playground* 4.9 Waikoloa Park 4.3 'Ainaola Park 5.9 0.0 Alii Kai Park 1.6 Kailua Playground 0.7 Lincoln Park 2.6 1.6 Lokahi Park 7.7 Machado Acres Park 7.9 1 Mohouli Park 4.0 5.0 University Heights Park 4.3 HI Ocean View Estates 72.0 1 Keikiland Playground 1.9 4.9 Lau ahoehoe Playground 0.5 Subtotal, Neighborhood 137.6 1 Waimea Church Row 2.80 4.3 Happiness Gardens 1.37 Kaumana Caves 4.87 1 1 5.9 Waikui Pond 0.65 Liholiho Garden 0.18 3.0 1 1 1 3.5 1 1 1 1 0.0 0.0 1.6 1 1 1 5.0 1 1 2 1 1 4.9 1 1 4.3 1 1 1 2 1 1 5.9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.0 0.7 1 1 1 2.6 1 4 2 1 4 7.7 1 1 1 2 0.0 4.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4.3 1 1 1 0.0 1.9 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 49.9 12 0 0 9 0 5 8 0 11 3 8 2 0 7 3 0 0 0 2.80 1.37 1 0.50 1 1 0.65 0.18 HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 119 Total 1,898.4 991.6 78 12 9 80 9 33 25 22 66 24 29 7 4 21 26 2 9 51 Park property acquired through lease, right -of -entry or joint -use agreement. Source: Hawaii County Department of Parks and Recreation. 1.01 HAwAi'i COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 120 d J V d v CL a O 7 W 0 t t 79 Jd`1O ad+ Nr ' C t N dC 7 W a W OO O C= 3 Q E O C E O O t n d d > :� N �N G J Total Dev. E e 'a a E Park Name Acres Acres u y a y a a (7 m m o U) m m> o m m m F m H Y vJ U o m Liliuokalani Gardens 19.54 19.54 1 1 Waipio Look Out 0.95 0.95 1 1 Kalakaua Park 1.18 1.18 Subtotal, General Park 31.54 27.17 3 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A.J. Watt Gym 2.19 2.19 1 E. Hawaii Cultural Ctr 0.57 0.57 1 Hilo Drag Strip 70.66 70.66 1 Hilo Motorbike Track 90.00 0.00 1 Kona Imin Ctr 2.55 2.00 1 Konawaena Swim Pool 1.00 1.00 1 Laupahoehoe Gym 0.50 0.50 Piihonua 1.65 0.00 Pi'ilani Elderly Complex 1.87 1.87 1 Veterans Center 5.62 0.00 Wainaku Gym 2.91 1.00 1 Hakalau Gym 1.82 1.82 1 Halawai 3.20 3.20 1 Hilo Armory 1.02 1.02 1 Hilo Muni. Golf Course 164.98 164.98 Hilo Skeet Range 113.38 5.00 1 1 Honaunau Rodeo Arena 6.13 6.13 1 Panaewa Equestrian Ctr 121.31 50.00 1 Panaewa Rainforest Zoo 51.00 10.00 1 Waiaea Rec. Center 1.76 1.76 1 Honokaa Rodeo Arena 8.00 8.00 1 Hoolulu Complex 56.20 53.35 Hilo Senior Ctr/Kamana 3.80 3.80 1 N. Kohala Senior Ctr 1.00 1.00 1 Pomaikai Senior Ctr 0.96 0.96 1 Lily Yoshimatsu SC 0.72 0.72 1 Puna Rec Complex 13.38 0.00 Subtotal, Other 728.18 391.53 6 1 9 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1,898.4 991.6 78 12 9 80 9 33 25 22 66 24 29 7 4 21 26 2 9 51 Park property acquired through lease, right -of -entry or joint -use agreement. Source: Hawaii County Department of Parks and Recreation. 1.01 HAwAi'i COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 120 Table 107 NON -STANDARDIZED PARK FACILITY INVENTORY HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 121 • Cost Index Cost Facility Hilo Drag Strip Year 1978 $1,138,570 2.774 $3,158,39 Hoolulu Park Grandstand 1971 $1,186,211 4.870 $5,776,84 Onekahakaha Beach Outdoor Stage #4 1948 $7,154 16.703 $119,493 Panaewa Equestrian Center Stable 1979 $41,504 2.564 $106,416 Panaewa Rainforest Zoo 2002 $367,627 1.178 $433,06 Panaewa Zoo Complex 1977 $1,031,706 2,989 $3,083,769 Panaewa Zoo Complex 1977 $350,000 2.989 $1,046,15 Shoro-an Tea House 1997 $107,000 1.322 $141,45 Shoro-an Tea House 1997 $503,633 1.322 $665,80 Waimea Park Grand Stand Complex 1994 $44,150 1.424 $62,87 Subtotal, Special Facilities $4,777,555 $14,594,261 Hila Muni Golf Course Maint Shop 1971 $69,524 4.870 $338,582 Hilo Muni Golf Course Work Shed 1950 $2,681 15.098 $40,478 Hilo Muni Golf Cr SE Cart Stor Bldg 1975 $28,772 3.481 $100,155 Hilo Muni Golf Crse Club House/Patio 1965 $32,988 7.930 $261,595 Hilo Muni Golf Crse Range Complex 1996 $500,000 1.370 $685,00 Hilo Muni Golf Crse Range Develop 1977 $106,904 2.989 $319,53 Hilo Muni Golf Crse Restroom, Shelter 1974 $28,440 3.812 $108,413 Muni Golf Course Greenhouse 1968 $2,124 6.667 $14,161 Muni Golf Course Greenhouse 1968 $2,124 6.667 $14,161 Papakou Club Houselmpr 2004 $185,659 1.082 $200,883 Papal Club House lm r 2004 $185,659 1.082 $200,883 Subtotal, Golf Course Facilities $1,144,875 $2,283,847 Hilo Civic Auditorium 1958 $455,187 10.145 $4,617,872 Hilo Civic Auditorium Butler Bldg 1987 $40,464 1.748 $70,731 Hilo Civic Auditorium Butler Bldg 1987 $40,464 1.748 $70,731 Hilo Civic Auditorium Butler Bldg 1987 $69,973 1.748 $122,313 Hilo Civic Auditorium Butler Bldg 1987 $69,973 1.748 $122,313 North Kohala Civic Center 1974 $308,000 3.812 $1,174,09 Waimea Civic Center 1974 $507,000 3.812 $1,932,68 Subtotal, Civic Centers and Auditoriums $1,491,061 $8,110,740 Total $7,413,491 $24,988,848 Source: County of Hawaii Building and Improvement Inventory, July 2005; cost Index based on the Construction Cost Index for June 2006 from Engineering News -Record. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 121 0" ...r this page intentionally left blank HAWAYI COUNTYMNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September %, 2006, Page 122 APPENDIX F: WASTEWATER FACILITY INVENTORY C W11 APPENDIX F: WASTEWATER FACILITY INVENTORY Table 108 WASTEWATER FACILITIES INVENTORY Public Service Center -sewer 1979 $164,368 2.564 $421 Keawe-Kilauealnterceptor Line 1935 $61,447 31.818 $1,955,12 Kailua-Kona Sewerage Sys Phase i 1964 $283,223 8.226 $2,329,79 Wailoa Force Main 8 Kai Interceptor 1965 $897,458 7.93 $7,116,841 Keawe-Kilauealnterceptor 1966 $789,021 7.556 $5,961,841 Kailua-Kona Sewerage Sys Phase ii 1973 $963,432 4.063 $3,914,42 Hilo Sewer System Phase Iii 1977 $1,078,332 2.989 $3,223,135 Kawili St Sewer Ext 1978 $142,020 2.774 $393,962 Papaikou-Paukaa Sewerage System i 1986 $236,907 1.793 $424,77 Papaikou-Paukaa Sewerage System i 1986 $144,261 1.793 $258,660 Papaikou-Paukaa Sewerage System i 1986 $835,996 1.793 $1,498,941 Papaikou-Paukaa Sewerage System ii 1988 $232,439 1.704 $396,076 Papaikou-Paukaa Sewerage System ii 1988 $1,056,213 1.704 $1,799,7871 Papaikou-Paukaa Sewerage System ii 1988 $136,273 1.704 $232,209 Kapehu Sewerage System 1988 $44,873 1.704 $76,464 Kapehu Sewerage System 1988 $345,405 1.704 $588,570 Kapehu Sewerage System 1988 $28,438 1.704 $48,458 Kuakini Interceptor A 1988 $286,376 1.704 $487,985 Kuakini Interceptor A 1988 $747,173 1.704 $1,273,182 Kuakini Interceptor A 1988 $122,293 1.704 $208,387 Kuakini Interceptor B 1988 $193,215 1.704 $329,23E Kuakinilnterceptor B 1988 $1,181,814 1.704 $2,013,811 Kuakini Interceptor B 1988 $200,733 1.704 $342,04E W-hselot Interceptor Sewer 1992 $973,464 1.545 $1,504,00: Onekahakaha Beach Park Sewer 1996 $464,887 1.37 $636,89'. Kalanianaole Collector Sewer 1997 $129,616 1.322 $171,35: Kalanianaole Collector Sewer 1997 $1,415,661 1.322 $1,871,50' Kalanianaole Collector Sewer 1997 $1,200,000 1.322 $1,586,40( Alii Dr Interceptor Sewer/Force II 1997 $3,836,859 1.322 $5,072,32', Papaikou Sewer System 1998 $338,644 1.301 $440,57! Papaikou Sewer System 1998 $2,008,163 1.301 $2,612,621 Papaikou Sewer System 1998 $341,000 1.301 $443,64' Keakehe Force Main 1998 $1,768,188 1.301 $2,300,41: Keakehe Force Main 1998 $1,708,000 1.301 $2,222,101 Keakehe Force Main 1998 $227,733 1.301 $296,28 Waiakea Houselot Interceptor Sewer 1998 $743,804 1.301 $967,68! Waiakea Houselot Interceptor Sewer 1998 $229,660 1.301 $298,78; Waiakea Mill Pond Sewer 1998 $1,581,310 1.301 $2,057,28 Waiakea Mill Pond Sewer 1998 $650,000 1.301 $845,65 HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 123 Ainako Interceptor Sewer 2000 $2,019,174 1.238 $2,499 Ainako Interceptor Sewer 2000 $3,000,000 1.238 $3,714 Waiakea Ctr/makaala-leilani Sewer 2000 $1,000,000 1.238 $1,23E Waiakea Ctr/makaala-leilani Sewer 2000 $405,492 1.238 $501 Alii Dr Intrceptr Sewr&force Ph III 2000 $2,029,281 1.238 $2,512 Alii Dr Intrceptr Sewr&force Ph 1 2001 $3,255,272 1.214 $3,951 Hilo Sewer System Rehab 2001 $2,659,834 1.214 $3,229 Paukaa Comm Collective System Ph II 2002 $2,301,927 1.178 $2,711 Waiakea Hselot Collector Systm Ph 11 2002 $5,505,904 1.178 $6,485 Subtotal, Collection $2,580,851 $49,801,214 Kealakehe Sewage Pump Stn $85,045 Wailuku Sewer Pump Stn 1936 $34,453 31.818 $1,096,215 $6,916,49 Kailua-kona Pump Stn 1964 $100,000 8.226 $822,600 8.226 Pua Ave Sewage Pumping Stn 1966 $337,356 7.556 $2,549,062 $556,145 Wailoa Sewage Pumping Stn 1966 $757,886 7.556 $5,726,585 1965 Hale Halawai Sewer Pump Stn 1995 $107,655 1.407 $151,471 Keauhou Treatment Plant Pua Sewage Pump Stn 1998 $947,630 1.301 $1,232,867 Pua Sewage Pump Stn 1998 $3,159,684 1.301 $4,110,74 Pua Sewage Pump Stn 1998 $1,983,744 1.301 $2,580,851 $794,840 Kealakehe Sewage Pump Stn 1998 $1,134,109 1.301 $1,475,47 2.564 Kealakehe Sewage Pump Stn 1998 $3,674,376 1.301 $4,780,36 ^a Kealakehe Sewage Pump Stn 1998 $572,000 1.301 $744,172 1982 Holualoa Sewage Pump Stn 1999 $20,498 1.271 $26,052 Papaikou Sewer Plant Holualoa Sewage Pump Stn 1999 $3,095,076 1.271 $3,933,84 Waiaha Sewage Pump Stn 2001 $3,697,893 1.214 $4,489,242 Wailuku Sewage Pump Stn 2002 $521,992 1.178 $614,907 $44,091 Banyan Dr Sewage Pump Stn 2003 $463,177 1.135 $525,70 1.301 Subtotal, Pumping $20,607,528 $34,860,160 HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 124 Hilo Ocean Outfall Line 1964 $840,810 8.226 $6,916,49 Kailua-kona Treatment Plant 1964 $235,000 8.226 $1,933,11 Hilo Ocean Outfall Line Ext 1965 $556,145 7.93 $4,410,23 Hilo Sewer Treatment Plant 1965 $1,166,652 7.93 $9,251,551 Keauhou Treatment Plant 1971 $1,221,398 4.87 $5,948,20 Kulaimano Sewer System & Plant 1979 $2,724,919 2.564 $6,986,691 Kulaimano Sewer System & Plant 1979 $310,000 2.564 $794,840 Kulaimano Sewer System & Plant 1979 $635,462 2.564 $1,629,32 Papaikou Sewer Plant 1982 $2,525,267 2.013 $5,083,362 Papaikou Sewer Plant 1982 $399,920 2.013 $805,039 Papaikou Sewer Plant 1982 $441,842 2.013 $889,42 Papaikou Sewer Plant Fuel Tank 1994 $30,963 1.424 $44,091 Kulaimano Sewer Stn Fuel Tank 1994 $30,963 1.424 $44,091 Hilo Wastewater Influent/Eff Line 1998 $8,690,985 1.301 $11,306,971 HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 124 M Hilo Wastewater Influent/Eff Line Hilo Wastewater Primary Facility/Ad Hilo Wastewater Primary Facility/Ad Hilo Wastewater Primary Facility/Ad Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Pint Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Pint Subtotal, Treatment 1998 $1,460,057 1.301 $1,899,53 1998 $12,050,052 1.301 $15,677,11; 1998 $9,400,156 1.301 $12,229,60 1998 $7,157,489 1.301 $9,311,89; 1998 $11,366,924 1.301 $14,788,36'. 1998 $4,112,880 1.301 $5,350,85' loon RB 711016 1.301 $8,731,03' $72,068,897 i $124,031 Source: County of Hawai'i Building and Improvement Inventory, Jury zuub: cost index oases on wusu uciwn w: Index for June 2006 from Engineering News -Record. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTFUCTUPE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 125 this page intentionally left blank HAWAYI CDUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 126 APPENDIX G: STATE, IMPACT FEE LAW C APPENDIX G: STATE IMPACT FEE LAW Title 6. County Organization and Administration Subtitle 1. Provisions Common to All Counties Chapter 46. General Provisions [PART VIII.] IMPACT FEES §46-141 Definitions. As used in this part, unless the context requires otherwise: "Board" means the board of water supply or water board of any county. "Capital improvements" means the acquisition of real property, improvements to expand capacity and serviceability of existing public facilities, and the development of new public facilities. "Comprehensive plan" means a coordinated land use plan for the development of public facilities within the jurisdiction of a county based on existing and anticipated needs, showing existing and proposed developments, stating principles to which future development should conform, such as the county's general plans, development plans, or community plans, and the manner in which development should be controlled. In the case of the city and county of Honolulu, public facility maps shall be equivalent to the comprehensive plan required in this part. �r. "County" or "counties" means the city and county of Honolulu, the county of Hawaii, the county of Kauai, and the county of Maui. "Credits" means the present value of past or future payments or contributions, including, but not limited to, the dedication of land or construction of a public facility made by a developer toward the cost of existing or future public facility capital improvements, except for contributions or payments made under a development agreement pursuant to section 46-123. "Developer" means a person, corporation, organization, partnership, association, or other legal entity constructing, erecting, enlarging, altering, or engaging in any development activity. "Development" means any artificial change to real property that requires a grading or building permit as appropriate, including, but not limited to, construction, expansion, enlargement, alteration, or erection of buildings or structures. "Discount rate" means the interest rate, expressed in terms of an annual percentage, that is used to adjust past or future financial or monetary payments to present value. "Impact fees" means the charges imposed upon a developer by a county or board to fund all or a portion of the public facility capital improvement costs requited by the development from which it is collected, or to recoup the cost of existing public facility capital improvements made in j� anticipation of the needs of a development. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 127 "Needs assessment study" means a study required under an impact fee ordinance that determines the "1 need for a public facility, the cost of development, and the level of service standards, and that projects future public facility capital improvement needs; provided that the study shall take into consideration and incorporate any relevant county general plan, development plan, or community plan. "Non -site related improvements" means land dedications or the provision of public facility capital improvements that are not for the exclusive use or benefit of a development and are not site -related improvements. "Offset" means a reduction in impact fees designed to fairly reflect the value of non -site related public facility capital improvements provided by a developer pursuant to county land use provisions. "Present value" means the value of past or future payments adjusted to a base period by a discount rate. "Proportionate share" means the portion of total public facility capital improvement costs that is reasonably attributable to a development, less: (1) Any credits for past or future payments, adjusted to present value, for public facility capital improvement costs made or reasonably anticipated to be contributed by a developer in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, or other payments; or (2) Offsets for non -site related public facility capital improvements provided by a developer ^^ pursuant to county land use provisions. "Public facility capital improvement costs" means costs of land acquisition, construction, planning and engineering, administration, and legal and financial consulting fees associated with construction, expansion, or improvement of a public facility. Public facility capital improvement costs do not include expenditures for required affordable housing, routine and periodic maintenance, personnel, training, or other operating costs. "Reasonable benefit" means a benefit received by a development from a public facility capital improvement that is greater than the benefit afforded the general public in the jurisdiction imposing the impact fees. Incidental benefit to other developments shall not negate a 'reasonable' benefit to a development. "Recoupment" means the proportionate share of the public facility capital improvement costs of excess capacity in existing capital facilities where excess capacity has been provided in anticipation of the needs of a development. "Site -related improvements" means land dedications or the provision of public facility capital improvements for the exclusive use or benefit of a development or for the provision of safe and adequate public facilities related to a particular development. [L 1992, c 282, pt of §2; am L 2001, c 235, �1] §46-142 Authority to impose impact fees; enactment of ordinances required. HAWAII COUNT %INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 128 (a) Impact fees may be assessed, imposed, levied, and collected by: (1) Any county for any development, or portion thereof, not involving water supply or service; or (2) Any board for any development, or portion thereof, involving water supply or service; provided that the county enacts appropriate impact fee ordinances or the board adopts rules to effectuate the imposition and collection of the fees within their respective jurisdictions. (b) Except for any ordinance governing impact fees enacted before July 1, 1993, impact fees may be imposed only for those types of public facility capital improvements specifically identified in a county comprehensive plan or a facility needs assessment study. The plan or study shall specify the service standards for each type of facility subject to an impact fee; provided that the standards shall apply equally to existing and new public facilities. [L 1992, c 282, pt of g2; am L 1996, c 175, §1; am L 2001, c 235, §21 §§46-143 Impact fee calculation. (a) A county council or board considering the enactment or adoption of impact fees shall fust approve a needs assessment study that shall identify the kinds of public facilities for which the fees shall be imposed. The study shall be prepared by an engineer, architect, or other qualified professional and shall identify service standard levels, project public facility capital improvement needs, and differentiate between existing and future needs. I4 w (b) The data sources and methodology upon which needs assessments and impact fees are based shall be set forth in the needs assessment study. (c) [2004 amendment retroactive to October 1, 2002. L 2004, c 155, 56.] The pro rata amount of each impact fee shall be based upon the development and actual capital cost of public facility expansion, or a reasonable estimate thereof, to be incurred. (d) [2004 amendment retroactive to October 1, 2002. L 2004, c 155, X6.1 An impact fee shall be substantially related to the needs arising from the development and shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred in accommodating the development. The following seven factors shall be considered in determining a proportionate share of public facility capital improvement costs: (1) The level of public facility capital improvements required to appropriately serve a development, based on a needs assessment study that identifies: (A) Deficiencies in existing public facilities; (B) The means, other than impact fees, by which existing deficiencies will be eliminated within a reasonable period of time; and (C) Additional demands anticipated to be placed on specified public facilities by a development; HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 129 (2) The availability of other funding for public facility capital improvements, including but not limited to user charges, taxes, bonds, intergovernmental transfers, and special taxation or assessments; (3) The cost of existing public facility capital improvements; (4) The methods by which existing public facility capital improvements were financed; (5) The extent to which a developer required to pay impact fees has contributed in the previous five years to the cost of existing public facility capital improvements and received no reasonable benefit therefrom, and any credits that may be due to a development because of such contributions; (6) The extent to which a developer required to pay impact fees over the next twenty years may reasonably be anticipated to contribute to the cost of existing public facility capital improvements through user fees, debt service payments, or other payments, and any credits that may accrue to a development because of future payments; and O The extent to which a developer is required to pay impact fees as a condition precedent to the development of non -site related public facility capital improvements, and any offsets payable to a developer because of this provision. (e) The impact fee ordinance shall contain a provision setting forth the process by which a developer may contest the amount of the impact fee assessed. [L 1992, c 282, pt of �2; am L 2001, c 235, g3; am L 2001, c 235, �3; am L 2004, c 155, §3] 0 X46-144 Collection and expenditure of impact fees. Collection and expenditure of impact fees assessed, imposed, levied, and collected for development shall be reasonably related to the benefits accruing to the development. To determine whether the fees are reasonably related, the impact fee ordinance or board rule shall provide that: (1) Upon collection, the fees shall be deposited in a special trust fund or interest-bearing account. The portion that constitutes recoupment may be transferred to any appropriate fund; (2) Collection and expenditure shall be localized to provide a reasonable benefit to the development. A county or board shall establish geographically limited benefit zones for this purpose; provided that zones shall not be required if a reasonable benefit can be otherwise derived. Benefit zones shall be appropriate to the particular public facility and the county or board. A county or board shall explain in writing and disclose at a public hearing reasons for establishing or not establishing benefit zones; (3) Except for recoupment, impact fees shall not be collected from a developer until approval of a needs assessment study that sets out planned expenditures bearing a substantial relationship to the needs or anticipated needs created by the development; (4) Impact fees shall be expended for public facilities of the type for which they are collected and of reasonable benefit to the development; and ..r HAWAII COUNTYMNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 130 (5) Within six years of the date of collection, the impact fees shall be expended or encumbered for the construction of public facility capital improvements that ate consistent with the needs assessment study and of reasonable benefit to the development. [L 1992, c 282, pt of g2; am L 2001, c 235, §4] §46-145 Refund of impact fees. (a) If impact fees are not expended or encumbered within the period established in section 46-144, the county or the board shall refund to the developer or the developers successor in title the amount of fees paid and any accrued interest. Application for a refund shall be submitted to the county or the board within one year of the date on which the right to claim arises. Any unclaimed refund shall be retained in the special trust fund or interest bearing account and be expended as provided in section 46-144. (b) If a county or board seeks to terminate impact fee requirements, all unexpended or unencumbered funds shall be refunded as provided in subsection (a) and the county or board shall give public notice of termination and availability of refunds at least two times. All funds available for refund shall be retained for a period of one year at the end of which any remaining funds may be transferred to: (1) The county's general fund and expended for any public purpose not involving water supply or service as determined by the county council; or (2) The board's general fund and expended for any public purpose involving water supply or service as determined by the board. (c) Recoupment shall be exempt from subsections (a) and (b). [L 1992, c 282, pt of §2; am L 1998, c 2, §14; am L 2001, c 235, �5] §46-146 Time of assessment and collection of impact fees. Assessment of impact fees shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of a grading or building permit and shall be collected in full before or upon issuance of the permit. [L 1992, c 282, pt of 521 §46-147 Effect on existing ordinances. This part shall not invalidate any impact fee ordinance existing on June 19, 1992. [L 1992, c 282, pt of §2] HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 131 0 this page intentionally left blank HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDSASSESSMENT-IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 132 APPENDIX H: v .%TATE ACT 197 APPENDIX H: STATE ACT 197 CHAPTER 264 HIGHWAYS [PART VIII.] IMPACT FEES [§264-121] Definitions. As used in this part, unless the context requires otherwise: "Capital costs" means part or all of the cost for capital improvements. Capital costs may include costs to acquire right-of-way, plan, design, engineer, finance, and construct improvements including costs of management and consultant fees. Capital costs shall not include periodic maintenance and other operating costs. [amended by SB 2901, sent to governor 5/8/06; effective 7/1/061 "Department" means the department of transportation. "Development" means any artificial change to real property that requires a county grading or mited to construction, expansion, enlargement, alteration, or building permit including but not li erection of buildings or structures. "Director" means the director of transportation. "Impact fee" means an assessment on a development used to incrementally fund a fair share of the capital costs of public highway improvements reasonably needed to serve that development. "State highway improvements" means capital improvements to the physical infrastructure of state highways. [L 2004, c 155, pt of �21 [§264-122] Highway development special fund. (a) There is established in the state treasury the highway development special fund to be administered by the department, into which shall be deposited: (1) Transfers of county impact fees assessed under part VIII of chapter 46 and this part to pay for state highway improvements; (2) Interest from investment of deposits; and (3) Legislative and county appropriations. (b) Moneys in the highway development special fund shall be used for the following purposes: HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 133 (1) Capital costs of qualifying proposed state highway improvements; .� -7,� (2) Reevaluation of the need, geographic limitations, amount, and use of impact fees; (3) Transfers to reimburse other special funds for expenditures which otherwise might have been funded with moneys in the highway development special fund; (4) Transfers under sections 36-27 and 36-30; (5) Refunds under section 264-125; and (6) The department's costs to implement this part, including but not limited to costs to administer the highway development special fund. (c) The department may establish accounts in the highway development special fund as necessary to implement this part and rules adopted by the department. [L 2004, c 155, pt of 52] [§264-123] Authority to assess impact fees; needs assessment study. (a) A county may assess, impose, levy, collect, and transfer to the department impact fees for any development pursuant to ordinances adopted under section 46-142 and this part, and the department is authorized to receive those funds for state highway improvements. (b) Prior to the assessment, imposition, levy, collection, or transfer to the department of impact fees pursuant to this section, the director shall approve a needs assessment study that shall identify the kinds of state highway improvements for which the fees shall be imposed by the county pursuant to part VIII of chapter 46. [L 2004, c 155, pt of g2] [§264-124 Impact fees; director's consent.] Notwithstanding section 264-123, no county shall assess impact fees for state highway improvements without the director's consent. [L 2004, c 155, pt of �2] [§264-125] Refund of impact fees to county. Upon the request of a county, the department shall refund impact fees transferred to the highway development special fund which have not been expended or encumbered for purposes established under this part within six years after collection under part VIII of chapter 46. [L 2004, c 155, pt of §21 [§264-126] Adoption of rules. The department may adopt rules pursuant to chapter 91 to implement this part. [§264-127] Limitations on actions. A civil lawsuit contesting an action by the department or a county under this part or under part VIII^r,, of chapter 46 shall be filed within sixty calendar days after the date of the action. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 134 APPENDIX I: NOVEMBER FOCUS GROUPS APPENDIX 1: NOVEMBER FOCUS GROUPS Stakeholder Focus Groups Meetings November 18 (Kona) and 21 (Hilo), 2005 & List of Participants (Total Participants: 18) Frederic Berg, Brookfield Homes Will Espero, DR Horton Sid Fuke, Planning Consultant Jacqui Hoover, Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference (HLPC) Keith Kato, Hawaii Island Community Development Corp. (HICDC) Kimo Lee, W.H. Shipman, Ltd. Ken Melrose, Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference (HLPC) Glenn Miyao, Wilson Okamoto Corp Bill Moore, Kohala Ranch Development Corp. Harold Murata, Self John Ray, Parker Ranch Skylark Rossetti, Hawaii Island Economic Development Board (HIEDB) Marianna Scheffer, League of Women Voters Amy Self, Corporation Counsel Bob Stuit, Hokulia �... Dean Uchida, Land Use Research Foundation (LURF) Bill Walter, W.H. Shipman, Ltd. Marian Wilkins, League of Women Voters B. Written Comments Submitted by Stakeholders: 1. Impact Fees level the playing field for new projects but do little to address the increased stresses on infrastructure based on infill on existing lots. Need parallel source of funds to fulfill government portion of costs. 2. I learned a lot — very interesting. I hope we can follow the suggestions of Duncan Associates. We must get our act together. I hope there will be more presentations open to the general public. 3. Positive: Good Questions and Answers. Handout/powerpoint informative. Negative: Started Late 4. Why is impact fee good for the County of Hawaii? What problem does it solve? 5. Good Presentation. Endeavor to educate the County on a variety of funding mechanisms. Make sure ordinance recognizes previous contributions exacted — credits. Examine county -wide fee calculation. 1w. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 135 6. There is a need for a broader look at infrastructure needs and financing to show what is the best or fairest portion of cost should be paid by impact fees. j After listening to the presentation yesterday my principle concerns are the impacts on our housing programs for both low and moderate income households. Previously, the County had exempted units from impact fees if the units were part of our program, this appeared in rezoning approvals and in the pre-emption resolutions. If an impact fee ordinance is to be adopted I would hope that it would similarly exempt affordable housing otherwise it will make the homes more expensive to develop and that in tum will cause less units to be constructed. While funding infrastructure is necessary for the continued development of affordable housing I hope that it doesn't become a burden on such housing while other less regressive alternatives are under-utilized. 8. Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference (HLPC) had a study done that shows tremendous growth/contribution in property taxes by the Kohala Coast resort homes - why can't these funds be used? At very least, need to integrate those revenues into the impact fees/needs assessment. The impact fees are being considered to give the County another funding source but it does not appear that the Administration has really considered other funding sources. Will County acknowledge that their position on concurrency is contradictory to implementing impact fees? Substandard lots are purchased at lower rates just by virtue of being substandard, therefore the exemption does not seem appropriate. 9. Thank you for inviting me to this presentation. 10. Need for an overall perspective. Impact fees are one of the many "tools" that government has available. Impact fees need to be fair and predictable. Leveling the playing field and affordable housing. C. Summary of Key Points Made by Stakeholders (written/verbal) 1. Create of a fair and predictable system 2. Exemption of existing substandard lots does not seem fair nor appropriate. 3. Take a comprehensive approach and expand scope to discuss other infrastructure financing options to supplement impact fees. 4. Government should identify their role and infrastructure financing options 5. Create an inclusive impact fee program - include state highways and schools. 6. Look at the strategic issues/questions - including, how much money we really need. Address how impact fees will affect affordable housing. S. Larger assessment/benefit districts are advantageous to county agencies. County's position on concurrency and implementation of impact fees ate contradictory. 10. Recognize previous fair share assessments and contributions paid by credits. AIN `..s HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 136 APPENDIX J: JANITARY VIDEO CONFERENCE APPENDIX J: JANUARY VIDEO CONFERENCE Video Conference Workshop Tuesday, January 17, 2006 (Hilo, Kona, Honolulu and Austin, TX) Total Participants: 58 Questions Answered at Video Conference: 1. Q: How often does one governmental jurisdiction collect fees for another? And are there any pitfalls or better ways you might suggest for doing this. Background for Hawaii would be if Hawaii County were to collect fees for State of Hawaii facilities. A: At present, the State enabling legislation does not provide for Counties to collect fees for State projects. Typically, throughout the United States, school fees are collected by cities and counties for individual school districts. In Hawaii, the State functions as the school district. We understand the State is working toward a uniform school impact fee that would affect new projects. It is probable that an amendment will be necessary to the State statute to permit County collection of fees for State road projects (at the beginning of the meeting, Planning Director Chris Yuen announced that the County has submitted a bill to accomplish such an amendment). 2. Q: I hear the problem of impacts on existing services clearly addressed. However, how is the impact of increased tax revenue resulting from new development taken into account? A: The collection of property tax revenue by the County does not ensure the construction of infrastructure to keep pace with development, or even to provide adequate infrastructure in the long term. This can be seen on the Big Island. Other taxes and fees can be/ate required to be spent on specific types of projects (such as the gas tax.). The need to spend targeted dollars on new infrastructure is a major determinant in the need for an impact fee. Case law requires taxes and fees paid for some capital facilities be deducted as credit against impact fees. For example, monies collected for new road construction via gas taxes would be credited against impact fees collected for construction of new roads. 3. Q: How can allowing one dwelling per lot be legal? Financing speculators? How can citizens support the adoption of impact fees? For example, how can we help get the mayor's bill passed? How can we get a copy of your PowerPoint for posting on waimeanplan.org? A: The issue related to the exemption of a certain class of property owners from the requirement of paying an impact fee is not resolved, and is being reviewed by the County Corporation Counsel. The issue relates to established legal precedents that require that the imposition of impact fees be equitable. There are other options available to exempting certain classes of property owners, such as offering a grace period (such as a year or other time period) for all parcels that exist at the time of the adoption of the impact fee ordinance to come in and get a building permit for that parcel. Citizens will be able to testify in support of a bill that adopts an impact fee, when public hearings are held at the Planning Commission and County Council. The PowerPoint presentation will be posted HAWAI'l COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTUFE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 137 on the planning Department's website through a link on the homepage at www.co.hawaii.hi.us/planning/ipfna.htm. 4. Q: To what extent are the various facilities to be proportionately funded by the impact fees, planned with the funding by the county in place? (Are we looking at additional funding sources? - am notes) A: We recognize that the full cost of funding future infrastructure needs cannot come from impact fees. Impact fees can only be assessed to achieve existing levels of service within the County. Other funding will have to come from other sources. Impact fees will offer the County another tool for funding.. This project will identify the maximum impact fee that the County can assess, and the actual impact fee could be less. 5. Q: Ocean View has over 8,000 lots. If no impact fee is charged for existing lots, how will the county provide infrastructure if these lots are built? A: We have to draw a distinction between on-site and off-site infrastructure. On-site infrastructure includes such things as internal subdivision roads. On-site improvements cannot be paid for with collected impact fees. 6. Q: (As written) What are the specific drawbacks of having two assessment districts corresponding to the two benefit districts- seems to be discrepancy in existing lots between East and West districts, which would be better reflected into assessment districts. A: The consideration of existing lots does not necessarily skew data within a single benefit district at -- the expense of that district, or in its favor. Assessment is based on island -wide level of service of regional facilities. The benefit of having an island -wide assessment district is that it evens out the assessment value, and there are no gross inequities in its application. 7. Q: Any better basis from other jurisdiction for basing fees on square footage? Formula based on data collection from one date- Oct. 19, 2005 (peak of boom in market) other jurisdictions justified seems shaky. How have square footage basis for fee? A: Impact fees based on unit size is an accepted methodology of fee assessment, and has been used by other jurisdictions. Data collection is based on historic data prior to October 19, 2005 going back several years. 8. Q: How can HI County support position of fees being allocated to state DOE for provision of necessary schools to support new development? A: The County is not authorized to assess fees for State projects (including schools). If the DOE adopts its own impact fee system for schools, it is unclear at this point how that would be administered. 9. Q: Are projected impact fees going to be comparable to existing fair share assessment of roughly $10,000/unit? This would seem to be a key factor in deciding how to deal with existing lots -any way to exempt only those lots currently owned by Hawaii Island residents? HAWAII C0UNTY\1NFPASTRUCTUPE NEEos ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 138 A: At this time, it would be premature to make any comparisons between fair share assessments and possible impact fee assessments. This information will be developed in the next phase of the project. 10. Q: What are you projecting for per unit fee? A: We have not yet calculated proposed impact fees. That will happen in the next phase of the project, after we analyze data we are collecting from a number of County agencies. 11. Q: Any major drawbacks to two separate assessment districts and two benefit districts? A: It is more complicated to calculate multiple assessment districts, and we are not recommending this. At this time, we are trying to keep the methodology simple. 12. Q: Said impact fee may only be used for CIP. Is it legal to use impact fee for repair and maintenance especially designed to reduce long-term capital costs? A: No, this would be legally dangerous even if used for preventative means. The Enabling Act is clear. Architecture and design costs are allowed, but not maintenance. 13. Q: If I live in Puna (subdivisions) and pay an impact fee- how and where does the money for water and sewers get spent? Am I likely to see this as fair? A: Impact fees will only apply if the property is connected to service. If not connected, you do not pay. The Department of water charges a separate connection fee at the time of building permit, so rr water is not being considered as part of this project. In regards to wastewater, very little of the County is actually on a County system. Only those communities that are already hooked up to or are adjacent to existing service would be considered for a sewer impact fee. 14. Q: From slides: What does "Credit for past property taxes" mean? A: There is a provision in the Enabling Act that requires that payment of past taxes be credited toward the payment of impact fees. The Act says we must look back 5 years, and in this case that would only involve the property tax. In this case, this would probably offer only a small credit, as the overall percentage of property taxes that were spent on qualifying infrastructure would be small. 15. Q: Will impact fees cover only roads or include fire, police, schools, and parks? A: Yes, fire, police, and parks will be included in this project. Schools are a statewide function, and cannot be covered by the County. The Department of Education is currently looking into an impact fee -type assessment. 16. Q: Resort development buyers tend to have lower impact than full time residences, yet recommended progressive fee would burden resorts more by virtue of having a higher cost on average. A: A progressive rate is based on the size of a unit, not cost. Fees are intended to be based on the occupancy (numbers) of a unit. Resorts during peak periods have a higher impact on roads, police, and fire. HAWAI'ICOUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 139 17. Q: (As written): If Impact Fees ase not collected from folks building on their older subdivision ✓ lots, does this mean that the impact fees will not be funneled back to these subdivisions: i.e. parks? In some of the older subdivisions residents are concerned about the many improvements being made in their communities. They are concerned about lifestyle, community environment impacts. From your experience have communities had a say on how fees are used? Q: (As asked): If impact fees are not collected from older subdivisions, does this mean that older subdivisions won't benefit? A: Funds received from a district are used within that district. If an area has lots of vacant lots, little revenue is generated for parks. You pay, you benefit. You don't pay, you don't benefit. 18. Q: Are there any tales of remorse due to impact fees? A: Few and far between. Only one of our (Duncan Associates) clients has done so, and that was due to an economic downturn. When the economy picked back up and growth resumed, the fees were reinstated. 19. Q: Could the County collect impact fees for state highways without a change in the state enabling legislation, extending the provisions of the state enabling act to the neighboring islands? A: As discussed previously, this is a legal question, and we believe the counties cannot collect impact fees for State road projects without a change in state law. A bill has been introduced to the legislature by the County to change the state law for this purpose. .mow 20. Q: 1. How would existing fair share assessment credits be handled? 2. Is there any consideration for collapsing State and County impact fees? A: If fair share assessments have already been paid, credits would be applied to new development. It is conceivable that "fair share" payments could completely cover the impact fees of new development. 21. Q: Do fees go into a specific account- not a general fund, and who decides where, when and how funds are used? A: To question #1, absolutely. To the other questions, the County Council decides. 22. Q: If you have one county wide -assessment district are you coming up with an average county -wide cost of all the improvements necessary to maintain L.O.S. for projected population (?) growth? Then money collected may only be used in one of the 2 or more benefit districts where they are collected. So each benefit district pays and receives the county average? A: County wide assessment districts will be based on average costs. Money collected in East and West benefits districts must be spent in the respective benefit district. 23. Q: (As written): Is there any intention to use impact fees in districts where they are raised? Otherwise there will be a tendency to spend money from under privileged districts like Ka'u in the more favored districts. HAWAII CAUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 140 (As asked): What about North and South? Will IF money coming out of South be spent in South? A: Impact fees are intended to be spent in the benefit districts they are collected from. It is conceivable that monies collected in Ka'u could be spent elsewhere in the benefit district. But there would have to be some rational basis for spending in that manner, such as that the project will affect the larger region. This will be discussed further into the project as we get a better idea of how benefit districts might be identified. 24. Q: (As written): Many, perhaps the majority of undeveloped existing lots are in non -conforming subdivisions where little or no county services are provided within the subdivision. If lots in non -conforming subdivisions are required to pay the same impact fees as lots in subdivisions with full -developed public infrastructure, wouldn't that violate the rational nexus standard? (As asked/recorded by am): I have questions on non -conforming lots with no County services. Will they be assessed? A: Impact Fees will not address services within the subdivision boundaries of non -conforming lots. These are considered "internal" or "on-site" infrastructure. Only infrastructure that is of more general benefit will be funded by impact fees. The question of whether and how to address these non -conforming lots will be an important topic of future discussion. Unanswered Questions: 25. Q: Does the "grace period" apply only to existing owners? Or also new owners? One-time? Spec houses? Residences? A: At the present time, consideration is being given to lots that would exist at the effective date of the bill adopting the impact fee. 26. Q: If HPP lot owners don't pay a sewer fee, how will they even get this service? A: This is a good question, and relates to the long-term capital improvement plans of the County. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for the County to assess an impact fee for a service it does not contemplate implementing within the lifetime of a capital improvements plan. There has to be a commitment on the part of the County to provide the service before a fee can be assessed. 27. Q: Currently, only limited areas within the county are serviced by public sewer. Would impact fees be discounted for areas not serviced or planned for future extension of sewer service? If not, how would fees be distributed? A: Impact fees will be calculated for a number of different services, and assessed specifically for those services. If development occurs in an area outside the service area for a certain service, then that particular impact fee will not be assessed. 28. Q: How would the impact fees affect builders in Non-residential pre-existing subdivisions? OR: would it apply? What would residential builders be charged to build a home on agriculture land? A: At this time, we believe all new non-residential development would be assessed for impact fees, most likely at the time of building permit. A single-family dwelling would be assessed the same basic impact fee, regardless of zoning. HAWAO COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEOs ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 141 29. Q: How are impact fees administered, i.e. are there provisions/mechanisms to `waive fees'? Like the problem with fair share fees. How can we keep good old boy politics out?) A: Procedures for administration should be clarified by ordinance, as part of the bill. It should be very straight -forward to assess and keep track of assessments and collections. 30. Q: Concern that mainland consultants were hired who are not familiar with our local communities. A: The consultants hired by the County include a planning firth from Austin, Texas (Duncan Associates) who have a long and impressive history working with local governments all over the United States to establish fair and reasonable impact fee systems. They are working with a planning firm from Honolulu that is long-established in Hawaii, who have a good sense of "local" planning issues. Guidance from County agency officials (including the Planning Department) provide additional assurance that local issues and sensitivities are included as part of the work process and product. 31. Q: Your calculation of size to impact only works in a normal range (i.e. 1000 to 3000 sq. ft) The range in house sizes is much larger (i.e. 500-24,000+) Across this range the correlation does not hold. How do you handle this? Are you concerned that collecting @ subdivision will reduce supply by increasing costs & risks? A: It is true that the correlation between unit size and number of residents tends to stabilize at the upper end of the typical range (about 4,000 square feet), and we generally cap the fees so that they ^ do not continue to increase for very large homes. We assume that your suggestion implies that developers would not want to process subdivision requests because of the added cost related to impact fees, and therefore, the number of new developable lots would not continue. We have found this not to be the case across the United States. Because the process establishes higher predictability and certainty to the development process, there is actually more interest in development than less, because the developer knows exactly what costs will be. 32. Q: Re: Needs assessment / Wa'a Wa'a Subdivision a. due to the growth in our Pahoa community, the govt. beach road needs "quarterly maintenance" to keep it in better condition to allow EMT/fixe access b. closer proximity of fire station (current volunteer truck is Wa'a Wa'a) c. ATV's being driven (noise, safety, and speeding) through neighborhoods INCREASE POLICE PATROL. d. County to take over maintaining `dedicated to county' Park- Kahaki Park- Add lavatories or portables. A: With respect to these specific needs, impact fess cannot pay for on-going maintenance, or salaries. They can be used for new facilities (restrooms, police stations, fire stations). 33. Q: The "drill deep" population of Ka'u district is estimated as 16,000 vs. the <6,000 of the 2000 census. Will any attempt be made to assess needs on realistic population estimates? Note also that as East/West divisions of Hawaii Island compounds the neglect of South and North. ...+ HAWAII COUNMINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDSASSESSMENT-IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 142 _ A: The calculations made for this project must be based on methodology accepted by decision -makers. In terms of population, Census data is the data used. We will take into consideration the need for additional benefit districts as the study progresses. 34. Q: Impact fees should be one of many tools we explore for infrastructure financing. A: This is a requirement of the State Enabling Act, and will be an integral part of the assumptions used for this project. 35. Q: Clarification on credit for past property tax payments. How does that work? A: These numbers will be calculated based on past property tax collections, and the percent of county expenditures spent for impact fee -eligible capital improvements. 36. Q: Progressive rates for residential units. Concerned over legality (more of a fee/tax) and fairness issues. A: Other jurisdictions have used a similar approach with single-family dwellings. Assessment is based on degree of impact, and larger homes tend to have greater impacts based on average number of occupants. 37. Q: Legality issues on calculating impact fees county wide and benefit issues A: The jurisdiction must be able to demonstrate the reasonableness of a county -wide assessment value. It has been used in many other jurisdictions. 38. Q: Concern over the ability and commitment to implement and administer. A: The administration of an impact fee system is not complex. There is an existing system of "fair share" assessments that the County has administered for several years, so it should not be a radical change in operating procedures. 39. Q: Issue of county impact fees being able to fund state road projects. A: An amendment to state law will be required to implement such actions. 40. Q: Would impact fees be divided between West Hawaii and East Hawaii and if so, would these fees be divided into "pots" of money for roads, parks, schools, other infrastructure and NOT be placed into the General fund? A: Yes, impact fees collected in specific benefit districts must be spent in those benefit districts for projects for which they have been collected (i.e., roads, parks, police, fire, solid waste, sewer). Collected fees will be placed in funds specific to their use. 41. Q: I am the water commissioner from North Kona. Cooperation we receive from State Highway Department is almost non-existent. Can adoption of impact fees improve this situation? Our greatest problem is use by the country of state road rights-of-way. HAWA19 COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 143 A: Unfortunately, an impact fee program cannot influence the use of State facilities (including rights-of-way). 42. Q: Ocean View might have the highest number of undeveloped lots- however, Ocean View has already developed its own fire department, road maintenance independent of county funds through community organization, giants and road maintenance fees. How will the fees be levied on those subdivisions that have taken infrastructure step independent of country? A: In terms of the internal roadways that service the subdivision, these facilities cannot receive fees collected from the impact fee program because they only service the subdivision. Impact fees are collected for facilities that have regional impact or beyond. In terms of the fire station, if the County decides it needs to build a regional fire station, it is possible that new development could be assessed impact fees to help pay for the new facility. It is possible that credit could be given for funds spent by residents on its "private" station. 43. Q: Is it the intention that the fees collected be ear marked for expenditure on the facilities that comprise the fee? For example, if $1 of the fee was for road "A", does that $1 do to a fund to pay for road "A" only? A: No, the fees will not be earmarked for specific projects, but for generalized categories (roads, parks, etc.) 44. Q: Can fee be used for facilities such as one stop community center for services to families and children? A: If the community center can be considered under any of the categories proposed for impact fee collection (e.g., parks), construction of a new center could be paid for with impact fees. Operation of the center cannot be paid for with impact fees. 45. Q: New infrastructure; what is the percentage in cost to be covered by the impact fee, and what the percentage in cost to be covered by the county funding (i.e. real property taxes?) A: This is a policy issue for the County. The impact fees will be calculated at the level needed to maintain the existing level of service that has been fully paid for by existing development. This level of service is likely to be much lower than the County's desired level of service. To achieve the desired level of service, other funding sources will be needed. 46. Q: If the impact fee is applied to a lot in Puna is it "fair" if these fees are used for roads, parks, police, fire, solid waste in another community within the benefit area? A: The use of collected impact fees would be intended to serve most directly the area in which it was collected. It is logical to assume that fees collected for a regional -level service provider could be located outside of some of the individual communities within the region. 47. Q: The consultant recommends two possible benefit districts- East and West Hawaii. They also recommend that impact fees be calculated countywide, based on countywide costs and levels of 14 service. Is there a difference in current costs and levels of service between East and West Hawaii? Is it material? HAWAII COUNTYUNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 144 M A: The project methodology calls for calculating an over-all County -wide level of service, and it is not intended that other separate calculations be made for East and West Hawaii. It is possible that there are some cost and level of service differences between East and West Hawaii, but the same could be said of any geographic breakdown. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 145 this page intentionally left blank w HAWAII COUNTYMNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 146 APPENDIX K: MARrm WORKSHOPS SUMMARY APPENDIX K: MARCH WORKSHOPS SUMMARY Compilation of Data from Ordinance Issues Stakeholder Workshops March 8, 2006 - Kona March 10, 2006 - Hilo Prepared by Alice Moon March 31, 2006 Table of Contents: The Dot Tally Evaluation Forms Compiled Facilitator's Report Forms Transcribed HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 147 THE DOT TALLY KONA: 1. Are you in favor of establishing an impact fee system to benefit Hawaii County? YES: 27 NO: 0 NOT SURE: 1- Benefits residents NOT County. A. Impact Fees Are for County roads, parks, Fire, Police, Solid waste & Wastewater facilities. AGREE: 24 DISAGREE: 1 SUGGESTIONS: 1 - Why not schools? - Water flood channels, low-income housing, SK Police station, underground utilities. - Plus cost of community planning process. - Public Parking & public transportation C. Impact Fees should be assessed at the time the building permit is issued. AGREE: 30 DISAGREE: 1 SUGGESTIONS: 1 The question is slanted, Developer should pay impact fees. D. Developers who have paid fair share contributions or made in-kind contributions should have impact fees reduced or eliminated. AGREE: 17 DISAGREE: 10 SUGGESTIONS: Not sure, too many "deals" have been made in the past E. If developers dedicate land or make eligible improvements for impact fees facilities after the effective date of the ordinance they should be reimbursed from impact Tees's. AGREE: 12 DISAGREE: S SUGGESTIONS: 1 Up to Impact Fee amount only. F. All fees should be calculated Countywide & be assessed with a uniform Countywide fee schedule. AGREE: 14 DISAGREE: 5 SUGGESTIONS: 10 Use sliding fee schedule based on value/ size Fees should be assessed by benefit district HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 148 G. Fees should be spent on the side of the island (west or east) in which they were collected (two benefit districts) Park fees should have five benefit districts (fig. 2) AGREE: 22 DISAGREE: 11 SUGGESTIONS: 1 Until infrastructure `equilibrium' is reached between east and west sides then island wide uniform application What about north and south- 50% in one district, 50% in other districts H. Rather than waive fees for affordable housing projects, the County should appropriate other funding to pay the impact fees for such projects. AGREE: 17 DISAGREE: 1 SUGGESTIONS: 1 "Affordable" doesn't work, use "low income" I. Single family fees should vary by the size of the dwelling unit to reduce the fees for smaller units AGREE: 23 DISAGREE: 15 SUGGESTIONS: Also based on home value. To be based on number of occupants K. Effective date of impact fee ordinance will be one year after the adoption date, during which fair share contributions would continue. Once ordinance is in effect, fees could be gradually increased. AGREE: 11 DISAGREE: 13 SUGGESTIONS: 2 Need longer time frame to incorporate new system HILO: 1. Are you in favor of establishing an impact fee system to benefit Hawaii County? (Post workshop) YES: 12 NO: 2 2. Are you in favor of establishing an impact fee system to benefit Hawaii County? (Pre workshop) YES: 25 NO: 1 NOT SURE: 11 A. Impact fees are for County roads, parks, fire, police, solid waste & wastewater facilities. AGREE: 27 DISAGREE: 0 SUGGESTIONS: -, Public Transportation - State roads Schools HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 149 Public housing C. Impact fees should be assessed at the time the building permit is issued. AGREE: 21 DISAGREE: 5 SUGGESTIONS: 1 Grace period D. Developers who have paid fair share contributions or made in-kind contributions should have impact fees reduced or eliminated. AGREE: 20 DISAGREE: 2 SUGGESTIONS: 1 Need to be paid the difference or be credited as such E. If developers dedicate land or make eligible improvements for impact fee facilities after the effective date of the ordinance they should be reimbursed from impact fees. AGREE: 16 DISAGREE: 8 F. All fees should be calculated Countywide & be assessed with a uniform Countywide fee schedule. DISAGREE: 7 G. Fees should be spent on the side of the island (west or east) in which they were collected (two benefit districts) Park fees should have five benefit districts (fig. 2) AGREE: 10 DISAGREE: 17 SUGGESTIONS: 5 Districts should be based on the system needs/ operations Have different districts for different infra/ services Ditto H. Rather than waive fees for affordable housing projects, the County should appropriate other funding to pay the impact fees for such projects. AGREE: 15 DISAGREE: 7 I. Single family fees should vary by the size of the dwelling unit to reduce the fees for smaller units AGREE: 16 DISAGREE: 10 SUGGESTIONS: Based on zoning or number of bedrooms K. Effective date of impact fee ordinance will be one year after the adoption date, during which fair ` share contributions would continue. Once ordinance is in effect, fees could be gradually increased. AGREE: 14 HAWAII COUNTYUNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 150 ME ,m - DISAGREE: 3 SUGGESTIONS: 3 This is 2 questions: I agree with part one, but not with part two. Option to have fees paid over a specific period of time (Use improvement districts) Depending on type of applicant; graduated HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 151 EVALUATION FORMS COMPILED KONA: 1. Based on today's discussion, are you in favor of establishing an impact fee system to benefit the County of Hawaii? Yes: 21 No: 2 Not sure: I Did not answer: 1 Other: 0 Comments: • With some revisions to the report as it stands now 2. Did this Stakeholder Workshop provide you with helpful information to understand the County IPFNA Project? Yes: 21 No: 1 Not sure: 0 Did not answer: 2 Comments: • Not enough 3. Was the venue convenient and appropriate? Yes: 13 No: 11 If not, why? Did not answer: 0 Comments: • Ka'u resident. Other: 1 Other: 1 • Bad traffic to/from site. • Very noisy. • A venue in Kailua-Kona would have been more convenient. Yano Hall was also very noisy (highway traffic). • Hot and noisy room. • Far too much noise and crowding. • Not good for hearing! Noisy. • 40 miles one way? • It was help during normal working hours making it difficult to attend for me and impossible for many others. Also, geographically, having one in the north and one in the south would have been more convenient and more people could have attended from those regions. • Too noisy, too little time. Wrong place, wrong time, not big enough. • Too noisy outside, otherwise okay. • Marginal for driving distance. • Too far from Kailua and noisy! 4. Is there any Impact Fee -related terminology that you do not understand or need further clarification on? • Priority 1 and 2 improvements - these could be spelled out (or be required to be spelled out) in conjunction with adoption of the ordinance. • Most of it was clear. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDSASSESSMENT-IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 152 K ID _ • H..."Appropriate other funding to pay the impact fee for such projects." o Affordable housing mean income of $52,000 is not affordable most low income workers make less than $20,000. • Yes, (H) affordable Housing Project o Multi units o Define more, etc. o Single-family low income housing o AHP Elderly individuals with limited government fund or income earned. • Per law, impact fees will be based on existing facility levels but West Hawaii area levels are so poor ... how can we ever expect equity of facilities and still pay the... share of taxes all the while? • All impact fees should be embarked to a special fund infrastructure. Money or fees cannot be borrowed or used for any other purposes. • Use of "affordable housing" terminology doesn't work and the federal formula doesn't work. We need "low income housing (rentals and for sale)." 5. How could we have improved this Stakeholder Workshop? • Larger room so tables not so close. We had to shout to hear over the other table. o Larger screen or closer so back of the room could read smaller print. o Have runners to take questions to be answered instead of having to wait till someone came to out table. • General Q&A time so group could benefit from discussions at other tables. • Hold in a room that provides more quiet for each group. • Facilitators should have had training and notification earlier and been in the budget. We want more respect and prep time! • Quiet environment and more time. • Different location. • Impact fees should not into the general fund. Should be assigned to the benefit district. o Facility too noisy. • Less participation by consultants at our table, have a runner to them if info needed, who comes back with a concise answer. This gives us more time. Also, for each issue to first state what the issue is [re?] what's wrong with today's fair assessment fee system? So we know in what light to look at the proposed answers! • More time, less confusing. Better notice/advance newspaper info, larger meeting room/quiet environment, held in evening so more residents could attend. • Uncertain. It was well organized. • It was a good workshop but subject is very complicated for even this amount of time. Thanks for doing it! Thoughtful process. • Given the "rules of engagement" beforehand. Ex: 1.) express ? 2.) discussion 3.) consensus of group. • Two more workshops • The "Dot" process good except it was missing input from group discussion. • Page 7 of policy analogies; HRS46-146 "If shall... preceded"...but as usual corp. counsel interprets "shall" as "may" (discretionary). • Continue to dialog. Everyone needs more education on issue. HILO: HAWA19 COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 153 1. Based on today's discussion, are you in favor of establishing an impact fee system to benefit the County of Hawaii? Yes: 17 No: 1 Not sure: 5 Did not answer: 2 Other: 3 Comments: • Still depends how commercial/industrial developments are treated. • Need much more work re: rational nexus. • Will support impact fee if it: o Complies with statute o Meets requirement of needs assessment study o Must be predictable o Must be reasonable, fair share and proportionate o Must show nexus o Must stay in the "region"/"community" that contributions are made contribution district = benefit district o Impact fees should be supplemented by other government -funding source thereby making fee reasonable o Must have an implementation plan • Much more research necessary and time to incorporate PCDP into this concept. • Yes, generally. Not sure about the details. • Yes, but not sure nexus and fair share still uncertain benefit districts. (?) 2. Did this Stakeholder Workshop provide you with helpful information to understand the County IPFNA Project? Yes: 27 No: 0 Not sure: 0 Did not answer: I Other: 0 3. Was the venue convenient and appropriate? Yes: 26 No: 1 If not, why? • 35 min. one way Comments: • Too noisy • Not enough parking! Did not answer: 1 Other: 0 4. Is there any Impact Fee -related terminology that you do not understand or need further clarification on? No: 3 • I learned many new terms today - Thank you! • Effect of impact fees on commercial areas! I'm particularly concerned about downtown Hilo which is under onerous development regulations, has plans (sanctioned by resolution of envision Downtown Hilo 2025) to develop "2nd floor living" and is seriously/strongly considering a B.I.D. • Has been explained • Not exactly sure how impact fees differ from fair share. 5. How could we have improved this Stakeholder Workshop? HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 154 01 M • This issue needs to be related to the larger issues of service level needs, maintenance and support cost/funding, and system needs and operations. • More time is needed- issues are too critical o Better explanation/clarification re: COH/Public Sector contribution o Clarify nexus between CDP/General Plan and Impact Fee o Process- consultants told us that the Impact Fee process (analysis) is not a planning based process. • A connection with CDP planning process would help some of us participating in both, but would help in "wrapping minds" around the topics/issues that need addressing so impact fees could be implemented. • A little more clarity in Q/A section (materials) o Ex: Using bullets, rather than imbedded info o Ex: Proofing carefully (alph) and being consistent with presentation slides, etc. • Clarify what types of development will pay such fees before the issue of waivers is discussed. • More time • Better explain the methodology (maintain existing level of service) as opposed o methodology used on Oahu for the Ewa example. Why is it better? • Seminar was positive. However, questionnaire seems so focused, why even bring up the other points if that isn't going to be really discussed? • It was well don't/infortnative. I felt like the idea of impact fees on commercial development or redevelopment was purposely moved under the rug. • Clarify commercial and residential I.T. • I thought it worked really well. Thanks! • More publicity about it. I wouldn't have known I could participate. • More discussion on cost recovery. How COH island wide impact fee compares with Ewa highway impact fee on Oahu. • Should have responded to participant [questions] before doing small group discussions. o Should have allowed "comments" to be incorporated as part of feed back in addition to adding solutions and voting on solutions. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 155 FACILITATORS REPORT FORMS COMPILED 0 KONA: ISSUE A: TYPES OF FEES Kona Group 2 Summary of discussion: Is there a better method to supply water to those who do not have access except catchment? Can impact fees remedy this if charter were changed, or what could be done? Agree that we need the fees. Would like to include water but we don't know how. FINAL POLL: Group checked "Yes" but no number of how many polled. Would like to include water (see above) Kona Group 4 Summary of discussion: Can Impact fees cover public buildings? Can we include water systems in the impact fees? Impact fees to cover new flood channels and flooding issues? Parking lots? Underground utilities? But lots of options discussed we had a different idea about covering flooding. (Did not do Poll) ISSUE B: EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD Kona Groin 1 Summary of discussion: Why exclude Puna and Ka'u- they are lacking in infrastructure and should be included. We agree they SHOULD BE INCLUDED. We agree possibly have a share cost with County for low-income owner. Option 5: Treat everyone equally, with some subsidy to low-income homebuilder on single-family lots. One year to implement - grace period during which time fair share assessment would still apply. FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1 - 4. No written number on poll on Option 5 except as noted in discussion above. Kona Group 2 Summary of discussion: Discussion of existing lots and how to assess them. There is a consensus that we decide to add #5 that all existing lots should be assessed an impact fee to be collected at the time of pulling building permit. Option 5: We have a consensus that we want to add alternative #5. All existing lots should be assessed an impact fee to be collected at time of pulling building permit. (Did not do Poll) Kona Group 3 Summary of discussion: Puna & Ka'u don't have service? If not going assess fees in Puna & Kau where is money coming from? If more lots zoned than houses #1 without paying fee (if #1) double. Why shouldn't everyone pay? What affect on affordable housing does everyone pays have? How can we assess three options without knowing what is wrong with current system? Are these options mutually exclusive? No rationale for exempting. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14,2W6, Page 166 Option 5: Fees same across the line. All new buildings pay impact fees. Adjustment for lower income. Progressive schedule. Option 6: Existing lots of record with existing owners of record with a grace period of 2-5 years to build without impact fee. FINAL POLL: 3 for Option 5; 1 for Option 6 Kona Group 4 Summary of discussion: Exclude Ka'u and Puna means no services. Reject #4 Why is there no option #5 that says we charge full fees for development? Why would Puna and Ka'u be excluded? The poor should not have to pay impact fees for their housing. This fits in at time of permits. Option 5: We charge full fees to everyone (residence, commercial, industrial, multi -family) at building permit level. FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1, 2 and 4. 1 for Option 3; 4 for Option 5. Kona Group 5 Summary of discussion: Most of the group felt that the unintended consequences associated with an exemption or exemption period would create negative impacts. Most of the group voted to have NO exemption. Most of the group would like to have the no exemption approach coupled with a sliding scale based upon the size (square footage) of the residence. Questions arose as to what was included in the counted lots (were ag, lots included?). A question was raised as to whether social engineering was behind the impact fee policy. Option 5: a. No exemption for existing lots, but provide a sliding scale based upon home size (Sq. Ftge.) b. No exemption and no sliding scale FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1, 2 and 4; 2 for Option 3; 6 for Option 5a; 3 for Option 5b Kona Group 6 Summary of discussion: What is the magic of a 5 -year period? What is the nexus? Does 2-5 year period provide an advantage to developers vs. local residents? Option 5: Bonafide farm dwelling (2nd house for workers) should be exempt and not give time advantage to big any developer over local residents. FINAL POLL: As written: Option 1 _No_ Option 2 _No_ Option 3 Mixed Option 4 unconstitutional best if can include option 5 ISSUE C: TIME OF COLLECTION Kona Group 1 Summary of discussion: When fees collected a) Agree with recommendations collect at time of building permit. b) Will impact fees lead to more non -permitted (illegal) construction c) More site inspections for illegal buildings to collect impact fees/taxes (No "FINAL POLL" printed on worksheet) Group checked "Yes" and noted "with above recommendations" ISSUE D: PRE -ORDINANCE CREDITS Kona Group 4 HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 157 No reimbursement of fees? If the fair share is less than the impact fee does the developer get charged more? FINAL POLL: Confusing question. ISSUE E: ORDINANCE REIMBURSEMENTS Kona Group 5 Summary of discussion: Question/Comment was made that while the proposed (Raleigh) approach may be easier for administration, but it may not be fair to the developer. Comments were made as to the benefits of the CFD process, including fairness to the developer and spreading out the impacts of fees on residents. Adjustments should be made under the Raleigh approach for the time value of money. FINAL POLL: No Vote. Kona Group G Summary of discussion: After ordinance date, why should developers who paid for eligible improvements be reimbursed from impact fees? Developers should be exempt. (No "FINAL POLL" printed on that particular section of worksheet) Group noted: needs clarification ISSUE F: ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS Kona Group 5 Summary of discussion: May be unfair if same schedule used around the island. (recorder drew /1 arrow with this noted to point to underneath "Final Poll's FINAL POLL: 4 Yes; 3 No ISSUE G: BENEFIT DISTRICTS Kona Group 1 Summary of discussion: We agree that there should be 9 districts. The majority of fees kept in their respective districts, with just a % to island -wide fund rather than split East/ West. FINAL POLL: Group checked "No" but no number of how many polled. Responded to "If NO. how many?" with: 9 as noted above Kona Group 2 Summary of discussion: Divide into East-West first, then after a period of 2 years perform a mandatory review to determine if this is a fair and workable plan. (Did not do poll) Kona Group 3 Summary of discussion: Benefits should be based on needs. How does benefits district help? Puna & Ka'u will be isolated. FINAL POLL: [ALICE NOTES: this is confusing... they have written 11 for Yes, agree with 2 benefit districts then they wrote under that and circled "abstain" then there is what looks like a tally with hash marks - three hash marks with "4 or 5" after them and I hash mark with "4 - 9" after it] HAWAil CDUNrV\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 158 Kona Group 4 t Summary of discussion: Can we expand and benefit districts from 24? Can we create sub -districts within Benefit Districts? Can we list different infrastructure needs and level of service by Judicial District? Can 50% of fees in Judicial District be spent there and 50% within district? FINAL POLL: "DISAGREE UNANIMOUS" Other Option: 50% of fees in Judicial District be spent there and 50% within district Kona Group 5 Summary of discussion: Most participants would like to have the resources generated in the area kept as close to the impact as possible. Most of the group wanted at least 2 benefit districts, and if only 2, that they should be segregated East/West. Most of the group, however, would like to see more than 2 districts. Five members of the group voted to have the districts established by existing districts (e.g. a district for Kau, a separate district for S. Kona, a separate district for N. Kona, etc...) Three member of the group voted to see the benefit districts conformed with the Five proposed park districts. FINAL POLL: see below Other Options: 1 for North/South; 5 for East/West; 3 for 9 Districts; 5 for 5 Districts (based on park districts) Kona Group 6 Summary of discussion: Proposed park districts seem to be a fairer spread in relationship to infrastructure needs --- based on population density but might inadequate (there should be different maps for the different services -police, fire, etc.) but proposed east/west districts. Fig. 1 relates better in subsidizing to what actually exists. All services ate not equal. FINAL POLL: Do you agree with the recommendation of EAST/WEST benefit districts per figure 1? YES with equity and level of service. ISSUE H: AFFORDABLE HOUSING Kona Group 3 Summary of discussion: Rational nexus. Need, benefit, fair share -everybody pays. Capacity enhancing Inequity created -everybody pays. 1. Legal Implications 2. What is wrong with existing system- not broke why fix? Current system- before I.F. act- legal defensibility issue. Fairness issue -commercial. All not zoned not paying? Renewal issue- not getting money. County exempted commercial. FINAL POLL: 6 agree with recommendation; 0 do not agree ISSUE I: PROGRESSIVE RESIDENTIAL FEE Kona Group 3 Summary of discussion: Should fees be based on distance from urban core? Higher level of fees - some do increase with distance- trip rates and trip length- Fees can be used. Can be variable- more complicated- second generation fee. Boundaries can be changed -lineal cash increases with distance. `►..r Benefit district/assessment fee - Impact fee capacity enhancing new development HAWAII COUNTYUNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 159 Charge same for every home- progressive fees. Socially regressive fee- rational nexus = supply and demand. Create a need = need to pay. Made a gesture toward affordability. FINAL POLL: 5 agree with recommendation; 1 did not agree Other Option: Add value. Kona Group 6 Summary of discussion: How does this relate to multi -family? (Ohana) Should be different issue from single family. FINAL POLL: Group checked "No" but no number of how many polled. Why? Flat fee would reflect reality of island living verses square footage up to 4,500 sq. ft. Other Option: Suggestion: No fees for units up to 4,500 sq. ft. ISSUE J: COST RECOVERY Kona Group I Summary of discussion: Impact fees can be used for studies for water, sewer, police, fire, and PARKS, community plans purchasing easements for public access. 100% adoption is okay- Yes. Exception where county subsidizes lower income single family lots. FINAL POLL: Group checked "Yes (with option)" but no number of how many polled. Other Option: 100% with exception of lower income/county subsidizes Kona Group 2 Summary of discussion: Suggested to charge maximum 100% at least as we begin until we see how the system operates. We have a large shortfall on infrastructure now, we need to catch up. FINAL POLL: Group checked "Yes" but no number of how many polled. Noted "100% Charge." Kona Group 6 Summary of discussion: What will the actual cost impact fees? Won't there be a disparity/ inequity of services. East Hawaii vs. West Hawaii? Hello! FINAL POLL: Group checked "Yes" but no number of how many polled. Noted "See issue G" HILO: ISSUE B: EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD Hilo Group 1 Summary of discussion: Generally, group concerns were the exclusion of fees for existing lots and national nexus for exclusion? Concurrency Resource assessments Consistency with CDP's general plan Option 5: Everybody pays FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1, 2 and 3;1 for Option 4 with condition "Support Option 5 if beginning point is concurrency HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 160 Hilo Group 2 Summary of discussion: Want rational nexus! What is the def tution of "impact"? What kind of facilities would be built? Is this discussion premature? Impact fees vs. improvement district. Is there a constitutional issue is asking fees for existing lots? How did we get to the 64,000? How many of those are owned by "State of HI" residents? Option 5a: Everyone pays with a credit to "substandard" subdivisions Option 6: Long term residence (sic) don't pay fee unless they are sell (sic) (speculator) (like state 10 year plan) Option 7: Needs more work FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1, 2 and 4; 3 for Option 3; 5 for Option 5a; 6 for Option 6; 6 for Option 7 Hilo Group 3 Summary of discussion: Very complex issue; see option #5. Option 5: All previous lots pay, with an offset for low income owner -occupants based on a sliding scale in accordance with affordable housing policy. FINAL POLL: We all agree that Option #5 should be considered. Hilo Group 4 Summary of discussion: Option 4 not viable vs. creating improvement districts Assessment districts Already built lots BI owners v. off-island/out of state owners- why not have everyone pay? Option 5: Impose impact fees to all lots in existence from date or ordinance. (against grace period ..w because it potentially benefits the wrong people/penalizes the wrong people). No waiver period or exemption for 1 SF unit. FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1, 2 and 4; 2 for Option 3; 4 for Option 5 Hilo Group 5 Summary of discussion: Lots of confusion about if commercial development was included in the discussion. How are mixed used property handled? Eg. a store with residential above. Can we factor in residency/non-residency in the charge of I.F.? Are we getting all the property owners (in and out of states) voices heard? Option 5: Existing lot owners will not get assessed impact fee, if lot gets transferred, new owners get assessed impact fee. FINAL POLL: Zero for Options 1, 2 and 4; 2 for Option 3 with condition: "2-5year"; 3 for Option 5 and I abstained Hilo Group 6 [ALICE NOTES: very difficult to decipher this report - some notes but not good recording] FINAL POLL: Option 1 - 3 Option 2 - 0 Option 3 - 2 Option 4 - 1 Option 5 - 3 Collect upon 1st sale of developed property Option 6 - 1 Each district will determine its own treatment of existing lots HAWAVI COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 161 ISSUE C: TIME OF COLLECTION Hilo Group 2 Summary of discussion: Time of assessment/collection at the time of building lots. Yes - S, No - 1 Option 1: Incremental payment over time for current owners of existing lots. Yes - 6, No - 1 [an arrow was drawn from this option in the summary area to option area] Hilo Group 5 Can it be assured after completion, so mortgage can include it? Instead of at the permitting? (Group did not poll) ISSUE D: PRE -ORDINANCE CREDITS Hilo Group 4 Summary of discussion: 1. Will real property taxes be calculated into impact fee credits? *yes, studies being conducted now to ID hard numbers. 2. Is there any method to determine whether a previous owner has already paid impact fees for a particular lot. *fees paid recorded with land (? w/ land) and not owners. FINAL POLL: Group checked "Yes" but no number of how many polled. ISSUE F: ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS Hilo Group 1 Summary of discussion: Assessment districts and benefit districts - needs to be connected? Why not ) ^"R related to needs? -� FINAL POLL: [In response to "Does your group agree or disagree with the recommendation?" this group polled zero for Yes and 7 for No.] with comment: "Similar to comments for G." Hilo Group 5 Summary of discussion: West side costs more for infrastructure so East side cost less, so different fee structure should be placed. (Group did not poll) Hilo Group 6 FINAL POLL: 4 for single district for assessment for nine districts 1 not sure Idea: Zip codes per benefit district ISSUE G: BENEFIT DISTRICTS Hilo GTOup I Summary of discussion: Group questions rational nexus for impact fees assured in Kohala (for example) and road improvements in Puna? Group questions why 5 districts for parks and not everything else? Consensus s is that group felt inequity due to East/West distinction for districts only. Answer: Make more districts? FINAL POLL: Two benefit districts? Zero for Yes, 7 for No HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDSASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 162 If no how many? Make more districts. 9 judicial districts. More specific about impact. Looking at level of service differences. Hilo Group 2 Summary of discussion: N. Kona and S. Kona should be grouped together with Kau as separate district. How are "lock box" managed? Should multiple types of districts be rationalized (eg. Benefits, representations, cenus, judicial, parks, etc.). Districts "value" vs. "needs" FINAL POLL: Zero for yes; 9 for No; Comment: Needs more work Hilo Group 3 Summary of discussion: Perhaps we should look at benefit districts with a systems approach defining each district with respect to infrastructure categories. (Roads, park, fire, police, wastewater) FINAL POLL: Group checked "No" but no number of how many polled. If no how many? 7 Hilo Group 4 Summary of discussion: 1. Will east/west benefit districts foster more divisiveness between east HI and west HI? No - may help W. HI to know they are paying their own share. 2. Too broad - just East v West doesn't have adequate nexus. 3. Do judicial districts have to be basis of benefit district area? Benefit district boundaries need to adequately reflect situation/community relationships (volcano) 4. How flexible are benefit district boundaries as system evolves? 5. What factors determine district boundaries initially? `.. 6. Why should people in an already established neighborhood pay for new growth? 7. Can benefit district be decided by up code? 8. Is there a way to differentiate fees for different types of services that benefit entire county (parks, fire, med) and those that are regional (roads)? 9. Ex: Kapolei charges flat rate fee per permit pulled to support roads. 10. Have improvement projects already been identified for proposed benefit districts? FINAL POLL: 5 for Yes; 1 for No; 1 Doesn't want to foster further animosity between E. HI and W. HI. Hilo Group 5 Summary of discussion: Why are the benefit districts so large? If it's too small, there won't be enough $$$. Concerned about money collected in a benefit district gets used in that area? 2 districts - Some districts can share benefit i.e. regional parks, roads that are shared any 2 or more benefit districts. FINAL POLL: Unanimously No; Suggestion: Follow park districts Hilo Group 6 FINAL POLL: Group checked "No" but no number of how many polled. 2 districts - 1 5 districts - 0 3 districts - 4 9 districts - 1 Comment: eliminate language "V.S." from all presentations. HAWAII COUNTV\INFRASTFUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 163 ISSUE H: AFFORDABLE HOUSING Hilo Group 4 Summary of discussion: 1. What is the source of affordable housing fund? *unknown at this time 2. Will developers be assisted a fee to pay into affordable housing fund *no FINAL POLL: Group checked "Yes" but no number of how many polled. Comment: But not sure where money would come from. ISSUE I: PROGRESSIVE RESIDENTIAL FEE Hilo Group 2 Summary of discussion: Progressive residential fees: Yes -0, No -7 Needs more study: Yes -0, No Wrong measurement (family unit): Yes -8, No -0 Flat Fee: Yes -6, No -0 FINAL POLL: Do we agree with the recommendation? Zero for Yes; 7 for No. If no why? Needs more study Other Option: Flat Fee: Yes -6, No -0 ISSUE J: COST RECOVERY Hilo Group 1 Summary of discussion: 1) Where is public sector/county share? 2) What is total cost of improvement and how much does county pay? 3) Impact fees that pay for everything is a tax 1) Define public/county share: existing level of service 2) Ewa model. Calculate what you want, how funded. (i.e. impact fees, tax, etc.) 3) Current LOS (?) by tax revenues. Future improvements by impact fees 4) Are all fees expected to pay for all improvements in the future. FINAL POLL: Do we agree with the recommendation? Zero for Yes; 6 for No ISSUE K: PHASE-IN PERIOD Hilo Group 3 Summary of discussion: We feel there should be a phase-in period. FINAL POLL: Group checked "No" but no number of how many polled. Other Option: Payments over time, with various financing periods. Hilo Group 4 Summary of discussion: If there is a phase-in period, how does that guarantee timely construction of improvements? *phase in to address county preparation for implementation fair share payment will still continue to be collected until I.F. becomes effective. (Group did not poll) 0 HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 164 APPENDIX L: AUGUST WORKSHOPS SUMMARY APPENDIX L: AUGUST WORKSHOPS SUMMARY .. Questions Posed During Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment Workshops Hilo (August 15, 2006) and Captain Cook (August 16, 2006) HILO 1. Question: Regarding Section 36-14(c) of the Draft Impact Fee Ordinance; on what basis shall the impact fee administrator assign priorities for allocating funds collected? There should be some reference to adopted Community Development Plans or General Plan priorities here to guide the allocation of funds toward clearly identified priorities adopted by the Council. It might be a good idea to suggest a process here whereby competing projects are ranked and presented as a package to the Council for final approval. Response: It is probable that determining priority for expending impact fees collected will be a collective effort of the County Council, the administration -including input from the departments, and the public, It would seem that the annual budgetary process already attempts to prioritize public improvement projects, and that adherence to CDP and General Plan recommendations are integral to that process. 2. Question: In your discussion related to the phase-in period of the impact fee ordinance, you mentioned in the presentation that you would like to avoid a disruptive effect on the real estate market. What kind of effect is possible? �. Response: The desire is to proceed with the adoption of an impact fee that is well-publicized, and provides builders and other residents with as much lead time as possible about the impact fee system. This will avoid confusion and surprise when building permits are submitted after the expiration of a grace period. The phase-in period would also provide administration with sufficient time to plan and implement the program by acquiring and developing the necessary tools and staff needed to ensure program operates efficiently. 3. Question: Why is there no impact fee proposed for solid waste infrastructure associated with commercial (and industrial development)? Response: Commercial entities wind up paying a tipping fee when they dispose of solid waste. This is collected when the business (or entity) either dumps solid waste themselves, or hues a thud party to collect and dispose of solid waste. The tipping fee is a "pay as you go" system. 4. Question: Can a wastewater impact fee be effective for homes that are on a catchment system? Response: A wastewater impact fee will only be assessed for new development that is within the service area of existing municipal wastewater treatment plants. N 5. Question: How were the maximum allowable impact fee values determined? HAWAVI COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 165 Response: They were calculated as the net cost to maintain the existing level of service, after taking into consideration other taxes and fees that would be generated by new development and available to fund capacity -expanding improvements. 6. Question: How will the expenditure of impact fees be prioritized? Response: The prioritization of spending impact fees could be a collective decision made by the Council and the Administration, with input by the public. As projects are approved for funding during the budgetary approval process, decisions could be made about which projects should receive how much money from impact fee sources. With community development planning efforts being initiated island -wide, it is hoped that some prioritization of projects will be voiced through these meetings. 7. Question: I own a buildable lot right now; if I apply for a building permit in one year will I have to spend $12,000 extra to cover impact fees? Response: If an application is made for a building permit prior to the effective date of the impact fee ordinance, then no impact fee will be required. Applications submitted subsequent to the effective date of the ordinance will be required to pay the impact fees. Also, keep in mind, that $12,000 represents the maximum amount that the administration can apply; and a decision can be made to apply a percentage of the maximum amount. 8. Question: I disagree that a one year phase-in period would limit or eliminate any disruption to the real estate market of projects that are "in the pipeline." This is primarily because projects in Hawaii can be "in the pipeline" for three years before ground is broken, especially if State/Federal financing and/or tax credits are involved (which is usually the case for affordable housing projects). Taking that timeline into consideration, as well as the need for supply, why can't an exemption for affordable housing be created for impact fees? Isn't the application of "fair-share"/disproportionate share a policy call? Response: An overarching requirement for any impact fee system is that everyone pays their proportionate share. No one can be exempted. It may be possible to have other sources pay for the impact fees that qualified affordable housing units would incur, but the fees must be paid. In regard to projects that "ate in the pipeline," they will not be penalized for their "review" status. If an application is made prior to the effective date of the impact fee ordinance, no impact fee will be requited. 9. Question: If the County pays the impact fee fat affordable housing, where does that money come from, and what would the net effect of that policy be? Response: The source of the money to pay affordable housing impact fees must be identified by the Administration and approved by the County Council. It could come from the general fund (real property taxes), grants, or other sources. It cannot be paid from the collection of impact fees, however. 10. Question: Can road fees for homes built on private roads be covered by impact fees? Response: No, impact fees cannot be used on private infrastructure systems of any kind. HAWAII COUNTYNINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 166 _ 11. Question: Has any consideration been given to people that also must pay SSPP (Special Subdivision Project Provision), which can range from $800 to $11,000? Response: No, not at this time. Mainly because electricity is a private utility and the County is not responsible for the installation of electrical poles. 12. Question: Hawaii County has Community Development Plans (CDPs) emerging. How do the CDPs intersect with the "ideal' comprehensive infrastructure plan that is suggested for the County to determine? This seems to be a central need for Hawaii County to face! Response: CDPs can be a valuable complement to infrastructure planning by allowing each community to assist with prioritizing infrastructure projects in their region. The CIP could take cues from the General Plan and the CDPs, during the budgetary review process. Further dialogue regarding impact fees at the CDP level can be very valuable. 13. Question: Are "impact fees" and "land tax" the same thing? Response: No. Impact fees are not considered a tax. They are a one-time fee designed to partially off -set the initial costs of infrastructure construction and financing. A land tax is on-going exaction that is paid by landowners to government, and not only funds initial construction and financing costs, but also is used for operational funding and maintenance of existing infrastructure. CAPTAIN COOK 1. Question: Under the current system, affordable housing is not exempt from fair share contributions. If an impact fee ordinance is adopted, and affordable housing is exempted, will that be retroactive? Response: In the first place, affordable housing will not be exempted from the impact fee system. Although the affordable housing owner or builder may not be personally responsible for impact fee payment, the fee must be paid into the impact fee system from another source. Neither the impact fee nor the program for payment of affordable housing impact fees will be applied retroactively. 2. Question: Has the impact fee study anticipated the tax base that is projected? Response: The Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment Study establishes the maximum impact fee value that can be assessed for each of the various infrastructure elements. It will be up to the County Council to determine how much of that maximum is appropriate, should the County move forward with an impact fee ordinance. Certainly one of the considerations for the Council would be how much might be available from the collection of other taxes that the County receives, and how that relates to the overall budgetary requirements of the County, and the projects perceived to be necessary for funding during that budgetary cycle. 3. Question: Regarding the benefit principle: wouldn't there be better representation (pay -benefit) if there were more than 4 districts? How about the same number of districts as we currently have represented by the County Council? HAWAII CDUNTYkINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 167 Response: The number of benefit districts needs to be carefully considered. If there are too many benefit districts, it may take longer to build the fund and it might be difficult to spend all the money collected within that district within the 6 -year statutory time limit. By aggregating areas into larger areas, it is significantly easier to identify projects to spend collected impact fees. Ultimately, the number of benefit districts can be tailored to meet the needs of each government body and community population that adopts an impact fee ordinance. 4. Question: In other areas, who does the actual work for infrastructural improvements, the government or the developer? Which do you recommend? Response: Circumstances often dictate who will actually construct infrastructure improvements. Frequently, developers will construct improvements when they have been required to do so as part of the entitlement process, and then dedicate the improvements to the County. If the project is being constructed as part of a County initiative to implement a CIP project, then the County must follow legal bidding requirements, and although a private sector company might be constructing the improvements, it is the government that actually funds the project and determines scheduling. Perhaps, we can also look forward to more collaborative efforts where government, private and community partnerships are developed to construct needed infrastructure improvements. 5. Question: Kaloko paid for its own roads, water, and power lines in the early 1970's. To what extent would Kaloko be fee -exempt today? Response: Individuals who build new homes at Kaloko after an impact fee ordinance is adopted will be required to pay impact fees. 6. Question: How many houses have been built by anyone in Hawaii County in the last 10 years that are "affordable?" Response: Presently, data is not available to answer this question. However, in the past, most developers paid in lieu fees to meet affordable housing requirements. About a year ago, the Hawaii County Code, Chapter 11, Affordable Housing, was amended to include affordable housing requirements which increased the per unit contributions required by developers. These new regulations should lead to the actual construction of affordable housing for residents. 7. Question: Can impact fees be applied to the following: Potable water systems (wells and distributions systems); youth centers/facilities; open space land (shoreline property for parks)? Response: Impact fees can be used for youth centers/facilities and the purchase of open space to be used for parks. Impact fees cannot be applied to potable water systems, unless a water impact fee is adopted by the County Board of Water Supply (as stated in HRS, Chapter 46). The Board of Water Supply has already adopted connection fees that function like impact fees. 8. Question: I was under the impression that impact fees can only be used to maintain level of service at the time of adoption and spent based on a capital improvement plan. How does this study ordinance address these? HAWAVI COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 168 Response: The Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment Study determined an island -wide level of service for all infrastructural elements contained in the report. Costs for future CIP projects are included in the study analysis. Actual funding of specific projects will ultimately be the responsibility of the County Council as part of the budgetary process. 9. Question: How would these fees be balanced for areas with private water and/or wastewater systems (e.g., Waikoloa Village)? Response: Impact fees cannot be collected for potable water facilities, and will not be imposed on areas that are not part of a municipal wastewater service area. 10. Question: Why is a solid waste fee not applied for uses other than single-family residential? Response: Commercial entities wind up paying a tipping fee when they dispose of solid waste. This is collected when the business (or entity) either dumps solid waste themselves, or hires a third party to collect and dispose of solid waste. The tipping fee is a "pay as you go" system. 11. Question: There seems to be both State and County roads in the inventory. So, is the County collecting fees to improve State roads? Response: The IPFNA study calculated maximum chargeable impact fees for County and State roadways, individually. This was in response to an initiative proposed and passed by the Legislature this year, and signed by the Governor, amending HRS Chapter 264, which gives all the Counties the ability to fund State roadway projects with monies collected by the assessment of �.. impact fees. The value of the maximum fee that could be charged for State roadways is significantly higher than the fee for County roadways, and raises the overall value of impact fees to a very high number. It will be up to the County Council to decide if such a fee is warranted and how much of the maximum fee to charge. 12. Question: Would the consequences of non-payment of impact fees be the same as non-payment of taxes? Response: If impact fees are not paid, then the building permit would not be issued for a specific development project. If taxes are not paid (assuming this reference is to property taxes), in a "worst-case" scenario the land in question can ultimately be seized by the County and sold to pay delinquent taxes. 13. Question: Who would be the impact fee administrator ---the Planning Department, Department of Finance or someone else? Response: At this time, no decision has been made regarding administrative responsibility for the impact fee program. It is anticipated that the various agencies that would be involved with impact fees would cooperatively determine how to administer the program. This would include the Planning Department, the Department of Public Works, and the Finance Department. 14. Question: What is the current 140% level for median income within Hawaii County? hY... HAWAII COUNMINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 169 Response: According to the most recent data found on Department of Housing and Urban Development's website (http://www.huduser.org/Datasets/IL/IL06/hi_fy2006.pdo, the current (March 8, 2006) median income for Hawaii County is $55,300. This would mean that $77,420 is 140% of median. 15. Question: What is the payment schedule for fees? Response: All impact fees calculated pertaining to any single development will be 100% due either at the time of issuance of building permit, approval of plan review, or final subdivision approval, depending upon when impact fees are required to be paid by the adopted impact fee ordinance. 16. Question: Where do collected impact fees get deposited, and who manages the money? Separate funds must be created for each category of infrastructure for which an impact fee is assessed, and must be further subdivided by the benefit districts created by the impact fee ordinance. The funds would be managed by the County with the designation of an impact fee administrator from one of the county departments. 17. Question: Can the money earn interest? Response: Yes, the money can earn interest. 18. Question: If roads automatically become property of the County, wouldn't that eliminate "roads in limbo"/gated communities? The impact fees should be matched with County funds (bonds), if needed. Response: Roads do not automatically become property of the County. Before the County will accept private toad -ways, they must meet County roadway standards. 19. Question: Could impact fees provide funds for a new police or fire department? Response: Yes, impact fees can be used to build new police or fire department buildings and to purchase needed equipment (fire trucks, police cars, etc.), but cannot be used to pay for salaries or maintenance of buildings or equipment. 20. Question: Why not assess fees on sale of homes (and put it in the impact fee fund)? Response: Impact fees cannot be assessed against existing development, regardless of whether it changes ownership. 21. Question: The biggest bottleneck to the construction of new infrastructure projects is the lack of interest by the private sector -they are too busy making big money to do County projects. Response: Throughout the course of this project, the consultant team has heard that there is a real problem within the County getting programmed infrastructure projects constructed. We have also heard a variety of reasons that contribute to this problem. Without assigning blame or responsibility, expediting infrastructure projects must be addressed by the entire community. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 170 APPENDIX M: PARTICIPANTS N APPENDIX M: PARTICIPANTS NOV. 18, 2005 FOCUS GROUP MEETING - KONA iarold Murata Mil Espero Jlarian Wilkins Can Melrose 3ob Stuit Jean Uchida NOV. 21, 2005 FOCUS GROUP MEETING - HILO Frederic Berg Sid Fuke Jacqui Hoover Keith Kato Kimo Lee Glenn Miyao Bill Moore John Ray Skylark Rossetti Marianna Scheffer Amy Self Bill Walter JAN. 17, 2006 VIDEO CONFERENCE - HILO Charles Aina, Jr. Jason Armstrong Stephanie Bath Marilyn Begg Peter Boucher Jerry Bragdon Joan Castberg Marge Elwell Byron Fujimoto Marissa Furfaro Jon Henricks Nelson Ho Ben Ishii Duane Kanuha Keith Kato Assistant Chief Quince Mento IMike Okumoto Assistant Chief Elroy Osorio Leslie Pedersen Community Member DR Horton League of Women Voters Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference Hokulia Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii Brookfield Homes Planning Consultant Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation W.H. Shipman, Ltd. Wilson Okamoto Corp. Kohala Ranch Development Corporation Parker Ranch Foundation Trustee/HLPC Hawaii Island Economic Development Board League of Women Voters Corporation Counsel W.H. Shipman, Ltd. C. Aina Jr., Inc. Hawaii Tribune -Herald Hawaiian Acres Community Association Waa Waa Subdivision Wastewater Division Hawaii Island Board of Realtors Legislative Research Naalehu Main Street/Discovery Harbor Association Jas G. Glover, Ltd. American Planning Association County Council Environmental Management Department of Public Works Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation Fire Department County of Hawaii Finance Treasury Division Police Department Yamada Diversified HAWAI'ICOUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 171 Dean Uchida Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii MAR. 8, 2006 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP - KONA HAWAri COUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 172 John Romanowski Jas G. Glover, Ltd. Charles Stanton Sierra Club - Moku Loa Group Wesley Takai Administrator, Real Property Tax Division Kim Tavares Fern Forest Community Association Bill Walter W.H. Shipman, Ltd. Hugh Willocks Hawaii Island Contractors Association J. Yoshimoto County Legislative Research Branch JAN. 17, 2006 VIDEO CONFERENCE - KONA Laura Aquino Current Events Bennett Mark Planning Department Jai Cheng County Department of Public Works Winston Chow First Hawaiian Bank Linda Copman County Council Malia David County Council Evelyn Gonzalez Ocean View Community Association Debbie Hecht Hawaii Island Land Trust Pete Hoffmann County Council Bob Hunter Waimea Comm. Dev. Assoc./League of Women Voters Paul Kay Stanford Carr Dev. Barbara Kossow County Mayor's Office John Medlin Stanford Carr Dev. Megan Mitchell County Council Harold Murata Community Member Angel Pilago County Council Patricia Provalenko PATDI, Inc. John Ray Parker Ranch Foundation Trustee/HLPC Stan Sitko County Department of Finance/Real Property Tax Division Jeff Turner Community Member George Wilkins League of Women Voters/Water Board Marian Wilkins League of Women Voters JAN. 17, 2006 VIDEO CONFERENCE - HONOLULU LeeAnn Crabbe Queen Liliuokalani Trust Scott Derrickson State Office of Planning Mary Alice Evans DBET/Office of Planning Frederic Berg Berg Enterprises Hamid Jahanmir State Office of Planning Dennis Kim DBET/OP Robert McGraw American Planning Association - Hawaii Dean Nakagawa State DOT Richard Poirier State Office of Planning Laura Thielen State Office of Planning Dean Uchida Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii MAR. 8, 2006 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP - KONA HAWAri COUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 172 HAWAI'ICOUNT/\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDSASSESSMENT-IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 173 Bobby Command West Hawaii Today Linda Copman County Council LeeAnn Crabbe Queen Liliuokalani Trust Roger Diles Community Member Fred Duerr WESPAC & HIBT Marge Elwell Naalehu Main Street/Discovery Harbor Association Duane Erway Plan to Protect Patty Fontanilla Coconuts to You Brenda Ford Citizens for Equitable and Responsible Government Diane Gaylord Community Member Evelyn Gonzalez Ocean View Community Association Meg Greenwell Kealekekua Ranch, Ltd. Loren Heck HOVE Road Corp. Greg Hendrickson Hokukano Ranch Marni Herkes Kona CDP Steering Committee Pete Hoffmann County Council Gerald Holleman Ocean View Community Association Virginia Isbell County Council David Kaawa Green Sands Subdivision Madeline Kaawa Green Sands Subdivision Ola Kochis Green Sands Subdivision Barbara Kossow County Mayor's Office Mary Leleiwi Hawaii Community College/OCET/CDP Facilitator Lydia Mali Kona CPD Steering Committee Ruby McDonald Office of Hawaiian Affairs Mark McGuffie Hawaii Island Economic Development Board Harold Murata Community Member Nancy Pisicchio County of Hawaii/HCRC Tanya Power Hawaii Island Board of Realtors Mike Price South Kohala Traffic Safety Commission Bob Rosehill Kamehameha Schools Amy Self Corporation Counsel Rowena Tiqui Kona Adult Day Center Curtis Tyler Kona CDP Steering Committee Shannon Underwood Community Member Lynn Vanleewen Ocean View Chamber of Commerce George Wilkins League of Women Voters/Water Board Marian Wilkins League of Women Voters Ross Wilson, Jr. Current Events Louise Winn County of Hawaii/ HCRC MAR. 10, 2006 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP - HILO Perry Armor Hilo Downtown Improvement Association Gil Barden Pacific Island Investments, LLC HAWAI'ICOUNT/\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDSASSESSMENT-IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 173 Stephanie Bath Hawaiian Acres Community Association Mary Begier HI Island Chamber of Commerce/HI Board of Realtors Jerry Bragdon Hawaii Island Board of Realtors/Eden Roc Malika Brown Tsukazaki Yeh Moore Carlton Ching Castle & Cooke Mary Finley Hawaii County Economic Opportunity Council Marissa Furfaro American Planning Association Fred Holschuh County Council Jacqui Hoover Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference Bob Hunter Waimea Comm. Dev. Assoc./League of Women Voters Austin Imamura Pacific Rim Bank Melvin Jadulang FFA Brian Kajiwara County Department of Public Works Keith Kato Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation James Komata County Department of Parks & Recreation Kimo Lee W.H. Shipman, Ltd. Calvin Mann Castle & Cooke Suzanne Mayhew Hawaiian Paradise Park Owner's Association Bruce McClure County Department of Public Works Robert McGraw American Planning Association. Jeffrey Melrose Kamehameha Schools, Land Assets Division Glenn Miyao Wilson Okamoto Corp. Bill Moore Kohala Ranch Development Corp. Dean Nakagawa State DOT Eileen O'Hora-Weir Pakaka Road Association jWaa Waal Mitchell Okuma County Real Property/Data Systems Jon Olson Puna Traffic Safety Susan O'Neill Rural South Hilo Community Association Richard Onishi County of Hawaii Data Systems Richard Poirier State Office of Planning Anita Politano Steckel Puueo Community Association John Ray Parker Ranch Foundation Trustee/HLPC Liz Salfern Nanawale Community Association/Puna CDP Marianna Schaffer League of Women Voters Stanley Tamura State Highways Division Kim Tavares Fern Forest Community Association. Ronald Tsuzuki State DOT Dean Uchida Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii Mary Ann Wanush Hilo Downtown Improvement Association J. Yoshimoto County Legislative Research Branch Jeff Zimpfer Watershed Advisory Group/PACRC AUG. 15, 2006 STAKEHOLDER PRESENTATION - HILO Joan Castberg County Legislative Research Branch HAWAII COUNTYtINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 174 0 1 HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 175 Deborah Chang County Planning Department Gregory L. Chun Kamehameha Investment Corporation Linda Copman County Council Melissa Fleming Melissa Furfaro American Planning Association Pete Hoffmann County Council Esther Imamura County Council Brian Kajikawa County Department of Public Works Alice Kawaha County Planning Department Brad Kurokawa County Planning Department Susan Lee Loy Realtor Kimo Lee W.H. Shipman, Ltd. James Leonard Planner Barbara Lively County Council Jeff Melrose Kamehameha Schools, Land Assets Division Glenn Miyao Wilson Okamoto Corp. Bill Moore Kohala Ranch Development Corp. Jon Olson Puna Traffic Safety Control Susan O'Neill Rural South Hilo Community Association Shirley Pedro Marianna Schaffer League of Women Voters Amy Self Corporation Counsel Kim Tavares Fern Forest Community Association Dean Uchida Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii Bill Walter W.H. Shipman, Ltd. Elizabeth Weatherford Community Member James Weatherford Community Member Chris Yuen County Planning Department Mike (Unknown) No last name or affiliation given AUG. 16, 2006 STAKEHOLDER PRESENTATION - KONA Jai Cheng County Department of Public Works Peter Cooper Maile David County Council Duane Erway Plan to Protect Kona Brenda Ford Citizens for Equitable and Responsible Government Larry Ford Citizens for Equitable and Responsible Government Evelyn Gonzales Ocean View Community Association Debbie Hecht Hawaii Island Land Trust Loren Heck HOVE Road Corp. Marni Herkes Kona CDP Steering Committee Virginia Isbell County Council Mike Kordas Ambika Kosada Kona Soil 8 Water Con. District HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 175 Barbara Kossow County Mayor's Office Trish Malone Jim Medlin Ken Melrose Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference Megan Mitchell County Council Harold Murata Community Member Diane Neuteld-Heck Bill Paris Palika Ranch Ed Rapoza Island Land Company Noelie Rodriguez Stanley Schauhuber Rowena Tiqui Kona Adult Day Center Sally Tukunaga Rick Vidgen Sherman Warner George Wilkins League of Women Voters/Water Board Marian Wilkins League of Women Voters Ross Wilson Current Events Louise Winn County of Hawaii/HCRC LOCAL RESOURCE TEAM Lee Ann Crabb Queen Liliuokalani Trust Mary Finley Hawaii County Economic Opportunity Council Robert Hunter Waimea Comm. Dev. Assoc./League of Women Voters Keith Kato Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation Robert McGraw American Planning Association. Bill Moore Kohala Ranch Development Corp. Harold Murata Community Member Ben Tsukazaki Attorney Dean Uchida Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii Ann Usugawa Community Member MAR. 8, 2006 - KONA FACILITATORS Patti Dunn -O'Connell Karen Eoff Judy Kautz Bennett Mark Megan Mitchell Louise Winn MAR. 10, 2006 - HILO FACILITATORS Barbara Lively Paul Squassoni Alex Frost Larry Brown Bob Hunter 1 00 HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 176 Jane Testa AGENCY LIAISONS assistant Chief Quince Mento Fire Department assistant Chief Elroy Osorio Police Department Judy Ah Chin DPW - Building Division Nicholas Ah Yo Fire Department Dora Beck DEM - Technical Services 3arbara Bell DEM - Director Peter Boucher DEM - Wastewater Christopher Chin -Chance DEM - Recycling Nancy Crawford Finance - Deputy Director Michael Dworsky DEM - Solid Waste Pat Engelhard Parks and Recreation - Director Nelson Ho DEM - Deputy Director Brian Kajikawa DPW - Building Division James Komata Parks and Recreation - Planner Barbara Kossow Mayor's Office Deputy Managing Director Galen Kuba DPW - Engineering Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd Corporation Counsel Curtis Matsui Fire Department Bruce McClure DPW - Chief Engineer Jeremy McComber County Office of Housing and Community Development Dean Nakagawa State - DOT Eileen O'Hora-Weir DEM - Recycling Mitchell Okuma Real Property Tax Division Michael Okumoto Finance - Treasurer Richard Onishi Data Systems - Property Management Systems Brand Deana Sako Finance - Accounts, Controller Amy Self Corporation Counsel Stan Sitko Finance - Director, Real Property Tax Division Bill Takaba Finance - Director Wesley Takai Real Property Tax Division - Administrator Stan Tamura State - DOT, Hawaii Highways Division Clayton Yugawa Data Systems - Director ADMINISTRATION Harry Kim Mayor, County of Hawaii Dixie Kaetsu Managing Director Andy Levin Executive Director Roy Takemoto Executive Assistant Christopher Yuen Planning Director Brad Kurokawa Deputy Planning Director Lincoln Ashida Corporation Counsel, Office of the Corporation Counsel Barbara Bell Director, Department of Environmental Management HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 177 Pat Engelhard Lawrence Mahuna Bruce McClure Darryl Oliveira William Takaba HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL Stacy K. Higa Virginia Isbell Fred C.Hoschuh M.D. Donald Ikeda James Y. Arakaki Gary Safarik Bob Jacobson Angel Pilago Pete Hoffmann PROJECT TEAM Rose Acevedo James B. Duncan Scott Ezer Susan Gagorik Alice Moon Clancy J. Mullen Amy Self, Esq, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation Chief of Police, Police Department Chief Engineer, Department of Public Works Fire Chief, Fire Department Finance Director, Department of Finance Council Chair and Presiding Officer, District 4 Council Vice -Chair, District 7 Council District 1 Council District 2 Council District 3 Council District 5 Countcil District 6 Council District 8 Council District 9 Alice Moon & Co. - Assistant President, Duncan Associates - Impact Fee Consultant Principal, Helber Hastert & Fee - Planning Consultant Co. of Hawaii, Planning Department - Project Manager Alice Moon & Co. - Community Liaison for Public Part. Duncan Associates - Infrastructure Finance Director Co. of Hawaii, Corporation Counsel - Legal Counsel And thank you to all others who contributed refreshments and offered suggestions and comments to the process. Mahalo! HAWAII COUNTYVNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 20, 2006, Page 178 0 ^I*A .. 00 W APPENDIX N: IMPACT FEE GLOSSARY APPENDIX N: IMPACT FEE GLOSSARY �... Assessment Districts refer to geographic areas subject to a uniform impact fee schedule. Benefit Districts refer to geographic areas in which impact fees collected are earmarked to be spent. Deficiencies, Existing refers to the cost to provide development existing at the time of adoption of an impact fee ordinance with the higher -than -existing level of service on which the impact fees are based. Development, Residential refers to subdivision of land for or construction of single-family detached or multi -family dwelling units. Development, New refers to development that is not in existence at the time of adoption of an impact fee ordinance. Development, Nonresidential refers to subdivision of land for or construction of buildings for uses other than residential development. Fair Share Assessments refers to the County's informal policy of requiring applicants for residential and hotel rezoning to agree to pay fees at time of platting, site plan or building permit to cover primarily off-site infrastructure costs relating to roads, parks, fire, police and solid waste facilities. The amount of the fees are based on a 1990 study, with annual inflation adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index. Impact Fees are one-time charges assessed on new development to cover primarily off-site infrastructure costs as authorized by Chapter 46, Part VIII of Hawaii Revised Statutes. Level of Service is a measure of the service provided by a certain type of capital facility. In impact fee analysis, level of service is typically expressed as a ratio of some characteristic of the facility type to the amount of development being served. For example, a common level of service measure for parks is acres of parkland pet 1,000 residents. Level of Service, Existing refers to the actual level of service provided by the County at the time of adoption of an impact fee ordinance. Level of Service, Higher -than -Existing refers to the calculation of impact fees based on the cost of providing a better level of service than is being provided to existing development at the time of the adoption of an impact fee ordinance. Lot of Record, Existing refers to a parcel of property in existence on the date of adoption of an impact fee ordinance on which a building or structure could legally be constructed without going through the County's subdivision process. _ Lots in Older Subdivisions refers to lots that were created in the early 1950s and 1960s and do not conform to present-day subdivision code requirements. Many of these lots were created without County facilities and services: they have private roads, which are often unpaved, no County water HAWAYI COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 179 system, no parks, police or fire substations in the vicinity, and are on cesspool. A large number of these lots are in the Puna and Ka' Districts. State Enabling Act refers to Chapter 46, � 141 tol48 of Hawai'i Revised Statutes, which was passed by the Legislature in 1992 and authorizes counties to assess, impose, levy and collect impact fees upon conducting a facility needs assessment study and the adoption of an impact fee ordinance. RAWAYI COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 16o APPENDIX O: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS APPENDIX O: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS A. Types of Fees 1. Question: What types of infrastructure costs are intended to be captured by the implementation of an impact fee ordinance? Answer. The proposed impact fees would be used to construct County -owned roads, parks, fire, police, solid waste, and wastewater facilities. 2. Question: Why is water not included, isn't it a County infrastructure? Answer The County Department of Water already imposes a connection fee at the time of building permit, which functions as an impact fee. 3. Question: Can the County use impact fees to build a public facility and turn it over to a private entity to maintain? Answer. Yes, however, the County would need to retain ownership, and the facility will have to be available for public use. 4. Question: Can County impact fees be spent on facilities owned and operated by the State of Hawa► i? L — Answer. Yes. The Governor signed into law Act 197, which now gives all counties in Hawaii the ability to impose impact fees for State Highways only. 5. Question: Can impact fees be used to purchase private land to build a park? Answer Yes, as long as appropriate powers of eminent domain (condemnation) are used. 6. Question: Can impact fees be used to improve a private road? Answer.• No, impact fees can only be used on publicly -owned facilities. 7. Question: Can the County use impact fees to acquire a private road and make improvements to it? Answer: Yes, if the road is classified as an arterial or collector road on the County's functional classification map. 8. Question: Can impact fees be used to retire a bond that was floated to build a park? Answer: No, not if the park already exists and is serving existing development. f_ 9. Question: Can impact fees be used for maintenance and operation costs? Answer.• No. HAWAII COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT—IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 181 1.3 C. 103 Treatment of Existing Lots + 1. Question: What will happen to development of new homes on lots that already r^!1r exist? Answer. The fate of existing lots of record has not been determined. A variety of different options are being considered, including: (1) waiver of impact fees for the first dwelling developed on an existing lot of record; (2) creating a grace period, that would allow building one dwelling on an existing lot up to five years after the adoption date of an impact fee ordinance; (3) having the County pay the impact fee for the development of one dwelling on an existing lot; (4) incrementally phasing the amount of the impact fee assessed over a period of years (for all development); and (5) creating a separate assessment district and benefit district for the Ka'u judicial district, and not assessing any impact fees in this district for new development, which means that no funds from collected impact fees would be available for infrastructure improvements. Time of Collection 1. Question: When would the impact fee be collected by the County? Answer. The impact fee can be collected at any time during the development process (e.g., subdivision approval, building permit, certificate of occupancy). The most common point to collect impact fees is at the time of building permit issuance. Pre -Ordinance Credits 1. Question: What is the County's fair share contribution program? Answer. Fair Share Contributions are a part of the County of Hawaii's informal policy of requiring developers applying for a change of zone to pay fees to mitigate the potential regional impacts of the property with respect to parks, fire, police, solid waste and roads. Developers are assessed these contributions at the Change of Zone level for rezoning of land to Agricultural -five acre (A -5a) and below in size, excluding commercial and industrial rezonings. The fair share contribution is payable prior to securing Final Subdivision Approval or Final Plan Approval. The fees are based on a 1990 Impact Fee Study and are adjusted annually beginning three years after the effective date of the ordinance, and based on the percentage change in the Honolulu Consumer Price Index (HCPI). 2. Question: What will happen to those projects that have been processed under the "fair -share" contribution program? Answer. If developers have paid fair share contributions or made in-kind contributions for projects that have not been completed, impact fees should be reduced or eliminated for any remaining development in those projects, based on the value of contributions already paid (adjusted for inflation) against the value of required impact fees. HAWA19 COUNTYMNFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 182 3. Question: Are there any other ways to have accrued credits against impact fees? Answer. Yes, a portion of property taxes over the last five years has been deducted from the fees in the impact fee calculations. E. Post -Ordinance reimbursements 1. Question: What would happen if developers are required to or agree to dedicate land or make eligible improvements for impact fee facilities after the effective date of the ordinance? Answer. They should be reimbursed from collected impact fees for the value of those improvements. F. Assessment Districts 1. Question: What is an assessment district, and how will they be divided up within the County? Answer.• An assessment district is a geographic area that is used to determine the value of impact fees to be assessed within that district. The impact fees are determined based on the existing level of service for those facilities within the district, and the value of new facilities necessary to meet the existing level of service for new development. For ease of administration, it is being recommended that the entire county be considered a single assessment district, which would mean that impact fees would be consistent throughout the county. G. Benefit Districts 1. Question: What are benefit districts and why are they important? Answer Benefit districts are established to help determine how collected impact fees are supposed to be spent. Impact fees collected in a specific benefit district must be spent within that benefit district, so that the people who contribute the fees will actually benefit from the construction of eligible facilities. Benefit districts are not easy to establish, because they should not be too small so that not enough monies are collected, and they should not be too large so that the community is unable to see benefit. H. Present Financing of New County Infrastructure and Public Facilities 1. Question: What ate the present sources for funding new County infrastructure and public facilities? Answer: Infrastructure and public facilities are funded through a variety of sources. County road construction and improvements are primarily financed through fuel tax and federal highway grants. They may also be funded with general obligation (GO) bonds. GO bonds are a low interest method of borrowing available to government entities wherein the full HAWAII COUNMINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 183 I. faith and credit of the entity is pledged to guaranty the repayment of the bonds. Sewer lines and facilities are commonly financed through the State's Revolving Fund, which is a pool of money dedicated to wastewater treatment projects, from which loans are made and repaid with interest. Other public facilities are normally funded by issuing GO bonds. For instance, the recently completed Kawananakoa Hall in Keaukaha was primarily funded with bonds. Borrowing through revolving funds or bonds is the most common way to finance construction of non -road infrastructure and facilities that will benefit the County for many years. The debt and interest are repaid from general fund revenues over the life of the debt, usually twenty years. The largest contributor to general fund revenues is real property tax. Fair share contributions (fees paid by developers) and private contributions may also be used to fund public facilities. The County's capital improvement program (CIP) is budgeted for in the Capital Projects Fund. Most projects for infrastructure and public facilities are budgeted within this fund. The funding sources mentioned above provide the cash to complete the budgeted projects. 2. What are Real Property Taxes used for? Answer.• Real property taxes help to pay for an array of services, including police and fire protection, civil defense, parks and recreation, elderly activities, solid waste program, mass transit, economic development, flood control, animal control, and government employees' retirement and health programs. Note: Roads, highways, and traffic signals/lights are funded primarily by your fuel taxes, state/federal grants -in aid, and private developers. In addition, water development and `•'✓ services are funded primarily by rate payers and private developers. Affordable Housing Projects 1. Question: With regard to the payment of impact fees, how will projects be treated that include dwelling units that meet affordable housing requirements? Answer: If a dwelling unit is constructed as part of an affordable housing project, impact fees must still be paid. This is because if the fees are not paid, it will draw the legality of the impact fee ordinance into question. At present, the recommendation is that the County will pay the required impact fees out of the general fund, not out of funds collected from assessment of other individuals' impact fees. Progressive Residential Fees 1. Question: Will all single-family development pay the same fee? Answer.• Not necessarily, fees can be based on the size of the dwelling unit which would be established by a progressive rate. Smaller dwellings could pay less impact fees, based on a pre -determined schedule that will become part of the impact fee ordinance or a standard fee could be applied across the board. 0 HAwMi COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 184 r^- K. Cost Recovery 1. Question: What does cost recovery mean, and how will it be applied to the collection of impact fees? Answer The study that is underway for the County Planning Department will determine the maximum fee that can be charged for the various categories of infrastructure that will be included in the impact fee program. The County could then adopt impact fees up to 100% of the determined maximum fees, or any percentage lower than 100%. Preliminary analysis indicates that the total maximum impact fees will exceed the current value being used for the existing fair share contribution program. L. Phase -In Period 1. Question: When will the impact fee program begin to operate? Answer. Because it will take some time for the County to prepare to administer the impact fee program, there should be at a minimum, a one-year phase-in period between the date the ordinance is adopted and the date the ordinance takes effect. During this one-year phase-in period, the fair share assessments would continue to be in effect. M. Application of Impact Fees 1. Question: Will facilities in my subdivision be upgraded with the expenditure of collected impact fees? Answer: No. Impact fees can only be spent on facilities that have regional impact, such as collector roads, solid waste transfer stations, fire stations, etc., and cannot be used to improve private infrastructure and facilities that are internal to individual subdivisions. N. Administration of Impact Fees 1. Question: Will impact fees be put into the General Fund? Answer. No. Impact fees will be collected and put into funds set up for the specific type of fee collected (road, police, fire, parks, solid waste, wastewater), and can only be spent on those facilities. HAWA(1 COUNTY\INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT -IMPACT FEE STUDY September 14, 2006, Page 185 0 DRAFT Chapter 36 IMPACT FEES Section 36-1. Short title and applicability. (a) This ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Impact Fee Ordinance," and is referred to herein as "this chapter." (b) The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all of the territory within Hawaii County. Section 36-2. Intent. (a) The intent of this chapter is to ensure that impact -generating development bears a proportionate share of the cost of improvements to the County's major roadway, park, fire/emergency medical service, police, solid waste and wastewater facilities; to ensure that the proportionate share does not exceed the cost of providing facilities to the development that paid the fee; and to ensure that funds collected from impact - generating development are actually used to construct system improvements that serve such development. It is further the intent of this chapter to use impact fees to implement the County's General Plan. (b) It is not the intent of this chapter to collect any money from any impact -generating development in excess of the actual amount necessary to offset demands generated by that development for improvements for which the fee was paid. (c) It is the intent of this chapter to utilize other non -impact fee funds to offset the impact on housing affordability. Section 36-3. Findings. The County Council of Hawaii County, Hawaii finds that: (a) The protection of the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the County requires that the major roadway, park, fire/EMS, police, solid waste and wastewater facilities of the County be expanded and improved to meet the demands of new development. (b) The creation of an equitable impact fee system would enable the County to impose a more proportionate share of the costs of required improvements to the major roadway, park, fire/EMS, police, solid waste and wastewater facilities on those developments that create the need. (c) The needs assessment study, which sets forth reasonable methodologies and analyses for determining the impacts of various types of development on the County's major roadway, park, fire/EMS, police, solid waste and wastewater facilities, is hereby approved. (d) The impact fees described in this chapter are based on the needs assessment study, and do not exceed the costs of acquiring or constructing additional facilities or equipment required to serve the development that will pay the fees. (e) There is both a rational nexus and a rough proportionality between the development impacts created by each type of new development covered by this chapter and the Draft Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance Duncan Associates, September 15, 2006, p. 1 DRAFT impact fees that such development will be required to pay. (f) This chapter creates a system by which impact fees paid by impact -generating development will be used to expand the major roadway, park, fire/EMS, police, solid waste and wastewater facilities, so that the development that pays each fee will receive a corresponding benefit within a reasonable period of time after the fee is paid. Section 36-4. Definitions. For the purpose of interpreting this chapter, certain words used herein are defined as follows: Applicant: The applicant for final subdivision approval, a building permit or a connection to the wastewater system for which an impact fee is due pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU): Represents the impact of a typical single-family dwelling. A typical single-family detached dwelling unit represents, on average, one EDU. For the purpose of park and solid waste impact fees, a dwelling unit of another housing type represents a fraction of an EDU, based on the ratio of the average household size of the other housing type to the average household size of the typical single-family detached unit. For the purpose of fire/EMS and police impact fees, a dwelling unit of another housing type represents a fraction of an EDU, based on the ratio of the functional population of the other housing type to the functional population of the typical single-family detached unit. Fire/EMS Facilities: Land, buildings, vehicles and capital equipment owned by the County and used for providing fire and emergency medical services, including fire stations, fire department administrative offices, training facilities, fire -fighting apparatus and support vehicles, and fire -fighting equipment. Fire/EMS System Improvements: Capital improvements that result in a net expansion of the capacity of the fire/EMS facilities to serve new development. Remodeling, replacement or maintenance of existing equipment or facilities do not constitute fire/EMS system improvements, except to the extent that they have the net effect of adding capacity. For example, half of the cost of tearing down a 5,000 square foot fire station and replacing it with a 10,000 square foot fire station could reasonably be considered a system improvement. Functional Population: The number of "full-time equivalent' people present at the site of a land use. General Plan: The comprehensive development plan that has been officially adopted by the County Council to provide long-range development policies for the County. Gross Floor Area: The total of the gross horizontal area of all floors, including usable basements and cellars, below the roof and within the outer surface of the main walls of principal or accessory buildings or the centerlines of a party wail separating such buildings or portions thereof, or within lines drawn parallel to and two (2) feet within the roof line of any building or portions thereof without walls, but excluding unscreened residential porches or balconies, vehicle parking garages, accessory or commercial vehicular parking areas and structures, and nonresidential arcades and similar open areas are accessible to the general public, and are not designed or Draft Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance Duncan Associates, September 15, 2006, p. 2 DRAFT used as sales, display, storage, service or production areas. Impact Fee Administrator: The County department director primarily responsible for administering the provisions of this chapter, or his or her designee. Impact Fees: The road, park, fire/EMS, police, solid waste and wastewater impact fees. Impact -Generating Development: Any land development designed or intended to permit a use of the land that will increase the number of service units. Impact -Generating Development, Commencement of: For the purposes of roads, parks, fire/EMS, police and solid waste impact fees, commencement occurs upon securing final subdivision approval for a new single-family detached development, or upon securing final plan approval or a building permit for single-family development on existing lots of record or for other types of development. For the purposes of wastewater impact fees, commencement occurs upon the purchase of a water meter or, if no water meter is required, upon physical connection to the County's wastewater line serving the property. Major Roadway Facilities: Arterials and collectors, including State roads and Federal highways, located within the County. Major Roadway System Improvements: Improvements that expand the capacity of the major roadway facilities, including but not limited to the acquisition of right-of- way, construction of new roads, widening of existing roads, intersection improvements, and installation of traffic signals. Lane reconstruction, sidewalk construction, medians, landscaping, street lighting and other ancillary components of a capacity -expanding road improvement shall not be considered system improvements when not an integral part of a capacity -expanding improvement. Needs Assessment Study: The Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment: Impact Fee Study prepared for Hawaii County by Duncan Associates in August 2006, or a subsequent similar report. Park Facilities: Land, buildings and improvements to County -owned or maintained land used for recreational purposes, and recreational facilities and improvements made or installed by the County on non -County property and available for public use. Park System Improvements: Capital improvements that result in a net expansion of the capacity of the park facilities to serve new development. Remodeling, replacement or maintenance of existing equipment or facilities do not constitute park system improvements. Person: An individual, corporation, governmental agency or body, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, two (2) or more persons having a joint or common interest, or any other entity. Police Facilities: Land, buildings, vehicles and capital equipment owned by the County and used for providing police services, including police stations, police department administrative offices, training facilities, patrol vehicles, and police equipment. Police System Improvements: Capital improvements that result in a net expansion 1, Draft Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance Duncan Associates, September 15, 2006, p. 3 DRAFT of the capacity of the police facilities to serve new development. Remodeling, ^` replacement or maintenance of existing equipment or facilities do not constitute w - police system improvements, except to the extent that they have the net effect of. adding capacity. For example, half of the cost of tearing down a 5,000 square foot police station and replacing it with a 10,000 square foot police station could reasonably be considered a system improvement. Service Units: Roadway VMT, park EDUs, fire/EMS EDUs, police EDUs, solid waste EDUs, or wastewater SFEs. Single -Family Equivalent (SFE): The wastewater demand associated with a typical single-family detached unit. Solid Waste Facilities: Land, buildings, vehicles and capital equipment owned by the County and used for providing solid waste services to self -haul residential customers, including landfill improvements and equipment, transfer stations and equipment, and vehicles. Solid Waste System Improvements: Capital improvements that result in a net expansion of the capacity of the solid waste facilities to serve new development. Remodeling, replacement or maintenance of existing equipment or facilities do not constitute solid waste system improvements, except to the extent that they have the net effect of adding capacity. System Improvements: Major roadway system improvements, park system Improvements fire/EMS system improvements, police system improvements, solid waste system improvements or wastewater system improvements. System improvements do not include land dedications or capital improvements for the r, exclusive use or benefit of a particular development. Vehicle -Miles of Travel (VMT): The number of vehicles traveling during a given time period times the distance in miles that these vehicles travel. Vehicle -Miles of Capacity (VMC): The maximum number of vehicles that can be accommodated on a roadway times the length of the roadway in miles. Wastewater Facilities: The land and improvements associated with the wastewater plant, including effluent outfall to receiving waters, and the wastewater collection system, excluding portions of the collection system typically installed by developers. Wastewater System Improvements: Capital improvements that result in a net expansion of the capacity of the wastewater facilities to serve new development. Gravity lines less than 12 inches in diameter are not considered system improvements. Remodeling, replacement or maintenance of existing equipment or facilities do not constitute wastewater system improvements, except to the extent that they add capacity. For example, half of the cost of constructing a new 6 million gallon per day treatment plant that will replace an existing 3 million gallon per day treatment plant could reasonably be considered a wastewater system improvement. Section 36-5. Time of fee obligation and payment. (a) On and after the effective date of this chapter, any person who causes the commencement of impact -generating development shall be obligated at that time to pay impact fees, pursuant to the terms of this chapter. The obligation to pay the Draft Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance Duncan Associates, September 15, 2006, p. 4 "�" DRAFT impact fees shall run with the land (b) The impact fees for roads, parks, fire/EMS, police and solid waste shall be determined and paid at the time of final plan approval or issuance of a building permit for the development, provided that for new single-family lots subdivided after the effective date of this chapter, such fees shall be paid at time of final subdivision approval. Wastewater impact fees shall be determined and paid at time of the purchase of a water meter for the development, unless no water meter is required, in which case the fees shall be paid prior to physical connection to the County's wastewater line serving the property. Section 36-6. Exemptions. The following shall be exempt from the terms of this chapter. An exemption must be claimed at the time of application for a building permit. (a) A single-family detached unit on a lot for which impact fees had been paid at time of final subdivision approval shall be exempt from any increase in impact fees of the types already paid, but shall be subject to any new impact fees for additional facilities. (b) Alterations of an existing single-family detached dwelling unit where no additional dwelling units are created. (c) Replacement of a destroyed, partially destroyed or moved residential building or structure with a new building or structure of the same use, and with the same number of dwelling units and with a total gross floor area that does not exceed the size of the original building or structure. (d) Replacement of destroyed, partially destroyed or moved nonresidential building or structure with a new building or structure of the same use and not exceeding the gross floor area of the original building or structure. (e) Any development for which a completed application for a building permit was submitted prior to the effective date of this chapter, provided that the construction proceeds according to the provisions of the permit and the permit does not expire prior to the completion of the construction. (f) The impact fee administrator shall determine the validity of any claim for exemption pursuant to the criteria set forth in this chapter. (g) In order to promote the economic development of the County or the public health, safety, and general welfare of its residents, the County Council may agree to pay some or all of the impact fees imposed on a proposed development or redevelopment from other funds of the County that are not restricted to other uses. Any such decision to pay impact fees on behalf of an applicant shall be at the discretion of the County Council and shall be made pursuant to goals and objectives articulated by the County Council. Section 36-7. Fee determination. (a) Any person who commences an impact -generating development, except those exempted or preparing an Independent fee calculation study, shall pay impact fees in accordance with the following fee schedule. [The County Council could choose to Draft Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance Duncan Associates, September 15, 2006, p. 5 R charge any percentage less than 100 percent of each type of fee.] Fire/ Waste- Solid Land Use Type Unit 5/8" x 3/4" Meter Roads Parks EMS Police water Waste Total** Single -Family Det. Dwelling $4,758 $6,566 $549 $657 $3,785 $242 $16,557 Multi -Family Dwelling $3,338 $5,187 $429 $512 $2,990 $0 $12,456 Hotel/Motel Room $4,767 $3,086 $258 $309 * $0 $8,420 Retail/Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $8,114 $0 $830 $992 * $0 $9,936 Office 1,000 sq. ft. $6,187 $0 $467 $558 * $0 $7,212 Industrial 1,000 sq, ft. $3,909 $0 $291 $348 * $0 $4,548 Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $2,287 $0 $187 $223 * $0 $2,697 Church/Synagogue 1,000 sq. ft. $3,121 $0 $467 $558 * $0 $4,146 School/College 1,000 sq. ft. $1,134 $0 $467 $558 * $0 $2,159 Hospital 1,000 sq. ft. $9,875 $0 $467 $558 * $0 $10,900 Nursing Home 1,000 sq. ft. $2,780 $0 $467 $558 * $0 $3,805 Other Institutional 1,000 sq. ft. $6,187 $0 $467 $558 * $0 $7,212 see wastewater impact fees by water meter size below for nonresidential development ** does not include wastewater impact fees for nonresidential development Wastewater Water Meter Size Impact Fee 5/8" x 3/4" Meter $3,785 1" Meter $9,463 1-1/2" Meter $18,926 2" Meter $30,281 3" Meter $60,563 4" Meter $94,630 6" Meter $189,259 8" Meter $302,814 10" Meter $548,851 (b) The fees set out above in subsection (a) shall be adjusted annually to account for inflation. At the end of each calendar year during which the fees have not been comprehensively updated, the impact fee administrator shall prepare an adjusted fee schedule, which will be posted on the County's web site and be made publicly available. The adjusted fee schedule will go into effect on January 1 of the following year. The adjustment factor shall be the ratio of the appropriate cost index for the quarter during which the adjustment is made (even if projected) to the same cost index for the quarter during which the fees were last adopted, updated or adjusted. The appropriate cost indices shall be as follows from the most recent edition of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works Construction Cost Index System, utilizing the Hawaii adjustment factors: (1) For road impact fees, the roads, railroads and bridges index; (2) For park impact fees, the recreation facilities index; (3) For fire/EMS, police and solid waste impact fees, the buildings, grounds and Draft Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance Duncan Associates, September 15, 2006, p. 6 DRAFT utilities index; (4) For wastewater impact fees, the pumping plant index. In the event that the referenced cost indices become unavailable, the updates shall be based on reasonable alternative indices as determined by the impact fee administrator. (c) Impact fees due and payable shall be net of any approved offsets available pursuant to Section 36-13, Pre -ordinance offsets. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to claim offsets prior to payment of the impact fees. Any offsets not claimed shall be deemed waived. (d) If the type of impact -generating development is not specified on the above schedule, the impact fee administrator shall determine the fee on the basis of the fee applicable to the most nearly comparable type of land use on the fee schedule. In the case of road impact fees, the impact fee administrator shall be guided in the selection of a comparable type of land use by trip generation rates contained in the most current edition of the report titled Trip Generation, prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), or articles or reports appearing in the ITE Journal. (e) If a new wastewater customer is not also a water customer, the impact fee administrator shall determine what size water meter would be required to serve the development. If a larger or smaller water meter is required solely due to abnormally low or high pressure in the County's main, the impact fee administrator shall adjust the wastewater impact fee to reflect more accurately the wastewater demand. (f) In general, impact fees shall be paid based on the principal use of a building or lot. For example, a warehouse that contained a small administrative office would be assessed at the warehouse rate for all of the square footage. Shopping centers are assessed at the retail/commercial rate, regardless of the type of tenants. For a true mixed-use development, such as one that includes both residential and nonresidential development, the fee shall be determined by adding up the fees that would be payable for each use as if it was a free-standing land use type pursuant to the fee schedule. (g) If the type of impact -generating development is for a change of land use type or for the expansion, redevelopment, or modification of an existing development, the fee shall be based on the net increase in the fee for the new land use type as compared to the previous land use type. (h) In the event that the proposed change of land use type, redevelopment, or modification results in a net decrease in the fee for the new use or development as compared to the previous use or development, there shall be no refund of impact fees previously paid. (i) Square feet in the fee schedule refers to gross floor area as herein defined. Section 36-8. Affordable housing deferral. The County may defer payment of impact fees by qualifying first-time home -buyers or owner -builders through a zero -interest loan program. (a) The maximum amount of the loan shall be equal to the impact fees that had been Draft Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance Duncan Associates, September 15, 2006, p. 7 DRAFT paid for the housing unit. The money shall be provided by the County to the A"k homebuyer at the time of closing on the sale of a newly -built housing unit to reduce ...w the size of the mortgage. For owner -builders, the money will be used to pay the impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. (b) The loan shall be due and payable when the recipient sells the house or no longer occupies it as a principal residence, whichever occurs first. (c) To apply for the affordable housing deferral, the buyer must provide the following: (1) Federal income tax returns for all persons whose name will be listed on the title; and (2) a notarized affidavit signed by each person whose name will be listed on the title stating that they have never been listed on the title of a housing unit. (d) To qualify for an affordable housing deferral loan, the following conditions must be met: (1) the combined adjusted gross income of all persons whose names will be listed on the title is less than 140 percent of the median adjusted gross income for households in Hawaii County as reported by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or its governmental successor in function; and (2) the purchase price of the housing unit is less than the median home sales price in Hawaii County for the most recent 12 -month period for which data is available from the Hawaii County Real Property Tax Office or other source. In Aak the case of an owner -builder, the price of the unit shall be estimated based on the market value of the land as recorded by the Real Property Tax Office and the estimated construction cost used on the building permit application. (e) An affordable housing trust fund shall be created to provide funding for the zero - interest loans. No impact fee receipts will be deposited in the affordable housing trust fund. The primary initial source of funding for the affordable housing trust fund will be non -impact fee appropriations from the County's general fund. The proceeds of loan repayments under this program shall be deposited back into the affordable housing trust fund. Section 36-9. Independent fee calculation. (a) The impact fee may be computed by the use of an independent fee calculation study at the election of the applicant, or upon the request of the impact fee administrator, for any proposed land development activity interpreted as not one of those types listed on the fee schedule or as one that is not comparable to any land use on the fee schedule, and for any proposed land development activity for which the impact fee administrator concludes the nature, timing or location of the proposed development makes it likely to generate impacts costing substantially more to mitigate than the amount of the fee that would be generated by the use of the fee schedule. (b) The preparation of the independent fee calculation study shall be the sole responsibility and cost of the applicant. (c) Any person who requests to perform an independent fee calculation study shall pay Draft Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance Duncan Associates, September 15, 2006, p. 8 �' DRAFT an application fee for administrative costs associated with the review and decision on such study. (d) The independent fee calculation study shall be based on the same service standards and unit costs for facilities used in the needs assessment study (as adjusted by the same cost inflation factors used in annual adjustments since the study was prepared), and shall document the methodologies and assumptions used. (e) An independent fee calculation study submitted for the purpose of calculating a road impact fee may be based on data, information or assumptions from independent sources, provided that: (1) The independent source is an accepted standard source of transportation engineering or planning data; or (2) The independent source is a local study on trip characteristics carried out by a qualified transportation planner or engineer pursuant to an accepted methodology of transportation planning or engineering. (f) The road impact fees shall be calculated according to the following formula. FEE = VMT x NET COST/VMT Where: VMT = TRIPS x % NEW x LENGTH + 2 NET COST/VMT = COST/VMC x VMC/VMT - CREDIT/VMT TRIPS = Trip ends during an average weekday NEW = Percent of trips that are primary trips, as opposed to passby or diverted -link trips LENGTH = Average length of a trip on the major roadway facilities + 2 = Avoids double -counting trips for origin and destination COST/VMC = Average cost to add a new daily vehicle -mile of capacity VMC/VMT = System -wide ratio of VMC to VMT on the major roadway facilities (assumed 1:1) CREDIT/VMT = DEBT/VMT + PAST/VMT + GRANT/VMT DEBT/VMT = Outstanding debt used for capacity improvements on existing road facilities divided by total existing VMT PAST/VMT = The net present value of property taxes paid over the last five years by vacant land for road capacity improvements, including general fund expenditures as well as debt service payments, per VMT GRANT/VMT = The net present value of future Federal and State roadway capacity funding anticipated to be forthcoming per VMT over the next 20 years Draft Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance Duncan Associates, September 15, 2006, P. 9 (g) The park impact fees shall be calculated according to the following formula. ^+ ..sd FEE = EDUs x NET COST/EDU Where: EDUs = UNITS X EDUs/UNIT UNITS = Number of dwelling units of each housing type in the development EDUs/UNIT = Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units represented by one dwelling unit of a given housing type NET COST/EDU = COST/EDU - CREDIT/EDU COST/EDU = Total replacement cost of existing park facilities divided by total existing residential development in the county, expressed in terms of EDUs CREDIT/EDU = DEBT/EDU + PAST/EDU + GRANT/EDU DEBT/EDU = Outstanding debt on existing park facilities divided by total existing EDUs PAST/EDU = The net present value of property taxes paid over the last five years by vacant land for park capacity improvements, including general fund expenditures as well as debt service payments, per EDU GRANT/EDU = The net present value of future Federal and State grant funding anticipated to be forthcoming per EDU over the next 20 ears A% Draft Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance Duncan Associates, September 15, 2006, p. 10 .4aw DRAFT (h) The fire/EMS impact fees shall be calculated according to the following formula. x NET COST Where: EDUs = UNITS X EDUs/UNIT UNITS = Number of dwelling units of each housing type in the development or thousands of square feet of nonresidential buildings of each land use type EDUs/UNIT = Equivalent Dwelling Units represented by one dwelling unit of a given housing type or 1,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area of a given land use type. Calculated as the ratio of the functional population per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet to the functional population of the typical single- family detached unit. For residential development, functional population per unit is one-half the average household size for that housing type. For nonresidential development, the functional population per unit is determined by the following formula: Functional population/1000 sf = (employee hours/1000 sf + visitor hours/1000 sf) _ 24 hours/day Where: Employee hours/1000 sf = employees/1000 sf x 10 hrs/day Visitor hours/1000 sf = visitors/1000 sf x 1 hour/visit Visitors/1000 sf = weekday ADT/1000 sf x avg. vehicle occupancy - employees/1000 sf Weekday ADT/1000 sf = one-way average daily trips (total trip ends—, 2) NET COST/EDU = COST/EDU - CREDIT/EDU COST/EDU = Total replacement cost of existing fire/EMS facilities divided by total existing residential and nonresidential development in the county, expressed in terms of EDUs CREDIT/EDU = DEBT/EDU + PAST/EDU + GRANT/EDU DEBT/EDU = Outstanding debt on existing fire/EMS facilities divided by total existing EDUs PAST/EDU = The net present value of property taxes paid over the last five years by vacant land for fire/EMS capacity improvements, including general fund expenditures as well as debt service payments, per EDU GRANT/EDU = The net present value of future Federal and State grant funding anticipated to be forthcoming per EDU over the next 20 years Draft Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance Duncan Associates, September 15, 2006, p. 11 DRAFT (i) The police impact fees shall be calculated according to the following formula. Where: EDUs = UNITS X EDUs/UNIT UNITS = Number of dwelling units of each housing type in the development or thousands of square feet of nonresidential buildings of each land use type EDUs/UNIT = Equivalent Dwelling Units represented by one dwelling unit of a given housing type or 1,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area of a given land use type. Calculated as the ratio of the functional population per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet to the functional population of the typical single- family detached unit. For residential development, functional population per unit Is one-half the average household size for that housing type. For nonresidential development, the functional population per unit is determined by the following formula: Functional population/1000 sf = (employee hours/1000 sf + visitor hours/1000 sf) _ 24 hours/day Where: Employee hours/1000 sf = employees/1000 sf x 10 hrs/day Visitor hours/1000 sf = visitors/1000 sf x 1 hour/visit Visitors/1000 sf = weekday ADT/1000 sf x avg. vehicle occupancy - employees/1000 sf Weekday ADT/1000 sf = one-way average daily trips (total trip ends—, 2) NET COST/EDU = COST/EDU - CREDIT/EDU COST/EDU = Total replacement cost of existing police facilities divided by total existing residential and nonresidential development in the county, expressed in terms of EDUs CREDIT/EDU = DEBT/EDU + PAST/EDU + GRANT/EDU DEBT/EDU = Outstanding debt on existing police facilities divided by total existing EDUs PAST/EDU = The net present value of property taxes paid over the last M years by vacant land for police capacity improvements, including general fund expenditures as well as debt service payments, per EDU GRANT/EDU = The net present value of future Federal and State grant funding anticipated to be forthcoming per EDU over the next Ank Draft Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance Duncan Associates, September 15, 2006, p. 12 '" r DRAFT (j) The solid waste impact fees shall be calculated according to the following formula. x NET COST/EDU Where: EDUs = UNITS X EDUs/UNIT UNITS = Number of dwelling units of each housing type in the development EDUs/UNIT = Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units represented by one dwelling unit of a given housing type NET COST/EDU = COST/EDU - CREDIT/EDU COST/EDU = Total replacement cost of existing solid waste facilities that serve residential development utilizing transfer stations divided by all existing single-family detached units CREDIT/EDU = DEBT/EDU + PAST/EDU + GRANT/EDU DEBT/EDU = Outstanding debt on existing solid waste facilities attributable to residential development utilizing transfer stations divided by all existing single-family detached units PAST/EDU = The net present value of property taxes paid over the last five years by vacant land for solid waste capacity improvements attributable to residential development utilizing transfer stations, including general fund expenditures as well as debt service payments, per EDU GRANT/EDU = The net present value of future Federal and State grant funding anticipated to be forthcoming for solid waste capital improvements attributable to residential development per Draft Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance Duncan Associates, September 15, 2006, p. 13 DRAFT (k) The wastewater impact fees shall be calculated according to the following formula. FEE = SFEs x NET COST/SFE Where: SFEs = UNITS x SFEs/UNIT UNITS = Number of dwelling units of each housing type in a residential development or the number of water meters of various sizes in a nonresidential development SFEs/UNIT = Number of Single -Family Equivalents represented by one dwelling unit of a given housing type or by a water meter of a particular size NET COST/SFE = COST _ CAPACITY x GPDJSFE - CREDIT/SFE COST = Total replacement cost of existing major facilities, excluding lines less than 12" in diameter typically installed by developers CAPACITY = Capacity of existing treatment plants in gallons per day GPD/SFE = 230 gallons per day per SFE CREDITJSFE = DEBT/SFE + PAST/SFE DEBT/SFE = DEBT _ CAPACITY x GPD/SFE DEBT = Outstanding debt on existing major wastewater facilities and equipment PAST/SFE = PAST _ CAPACITY x GPD/SFE PAST = The net present value of property taxes paid over the last five years by vacant land for wastewater capacity improvements, including general fund expenditures as well as debt service payments Section 36-10. Use of fees. (a) An impact fee fund that is distinct from the general fund of the County is hereby created, and the impact fees received will be deposited in the following interest- bearing accounts of the impact fee fund: (1) Road Impact Fee Account; (2) Park Impact Fee Account; (3) Fire/EMS Impact Fee Account; (4) Police Impact Fee Account; (5) Solid Waste Impact Fee Account; and (6) Wastewater Impact Fee Account; (b) Within each account, with the exception of the wastewater impact fee account, there are hereby created five sub -accounts, corresponding to four sub -area benefit zones Draft Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance Duncan Associates, September 15, 2006, p. 14 DRAFT and one county -wide benefit zone. The sub -area benefit zones shall consist of the following aggregations of judicial districts: (1) 1 -North Kohala/South Kohala; (2) 2 -North Hilo/South Hilo and Hamakua; (3) 3-Puna/Kau; and (4) 4 -North Kona/South Kona. (c) Within the wastewater impact fee account, there are hereby created five sub - accounts, corresponding to the five County wastewater systems, as follows: (1) 1-Kealakehe; (2) 2-Kapehu; (3) 3-Kulaimano; (4) 4-Papaikou; and (5) 5 -Hilo. (d) With the exception of solid waste and wastewater impact fees, up to 20 percent of the impact fee revenues collected within a benefit zone may be used to fund improvements located outside the benefit zone in which the fees were collected, provided that the County Council makes a finding that the improvement will provide significant benefit to new development in the collecting zone. For solid waste impact fees, the percentage shall be 40 percent. Wastewater impact fee revenues shall be placed in the sub -area account corresponding to the wastewater system to which the fee payer is connected, and shall be spent only for improvements to that wastewater system. (e) Each account shall contain only those impact fees collected pursuant to this chapter for the type of facility reflected in the title of the account plus any interest that may accrue from time to time on such amounts. Any accrued interest shall be subject to the same restrictions as other funds in the account. (f) Monies in each impact fee account shall be considered to be spent in the order collected or accrued, on a first-in/first-out basis. (g) The monies in each impact fee account shall be used only for the following: (1) To acquire or construct system improvements of the type reflected in the title of the account; (2) To pay debt service on any portion of any current or future general obligation bond or revenue bond that was used to create capacity of the type reflected in the title of the account that will be available to serve development occurring after the effective date of this chapter; (3) As described in Section 36-11, Refunds; or Draft Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance Duncan Associates, September 15, 2006, p. 15 (4) As described in Section 36-12, Post -Ordinance Reimbursements. „n (h) The monies in each impact fee account shall not be used for the following: (1) Rehabilitation, reconstruction, replacement or maintenance of existing facilities; or (2) Ongoing operational costs Section 36-11. Refunds. (a) If a building permit for which an impact fee was paid expires, is revoked or voluntarily surrendered and therefore voided, and no construction or improvement of land has commenced, then the feepayer is entitled to a refund of the impact fee paid as a condition for its issuance, except that up to three percent of the impact fee paid will be retained as an administrative fee to offset the cost of processing the refund. No interest will be paid to the feepayer on refunds due to noncommencement. (b) Any monies in the impact fee fund that have not been spent or encumbered within six (6) years after the date on which such fee was paid shall be returned to the current owners with interest since the date of payment. (1) Notice of the right to a refund, including the amount of the refund and the procedure for applying for and receiving the refund, shall be sent or served in writing to the present owners of the property within thirty (30) days of the date the refund becomes due. The sending by regular mail of the notices to all present owners of record shall be sufficient to satisfy the requirement of notice. 0*4 .i (2) Application for a refund shall be submitted to the County within one year of the date on which the right to a refund arises. (3) Following approval of the refund application by the impact fee administrator, the refund shall be paid in full. (4) Any unclaimed refund shall be retained in the appropriate account and expended as provided in Section 36-10, Use of Funds. (5) In the event that the County terminates impact fee requirements, all unexpended or unencumbered funds shall be refunded as provided in this section. The County shall give public notice of termination and availability of refunds at least two times. All funds available for refund shall be retained for a period of one year at the end of which any remaining funds may be transferred to the County's general fund and expended for any public purpose not involving water supply or service as determined by the County Council. Section 36-12. Post -ordinance reimbursements. (a) Credit for reimbursements from impact fees collected by the County shall be provided for contributions toward the cost of system improvements for the same type of facility. (1) Approved credits shall generally become effective when the improvements /fie Draft Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance Duncan Associates, September 15, 2006, p. 16 ` w have been completed and have been accepted by the County. "®' (2) No credit will be applied to the road impact fee for improvements to the major roadway facilities that primarily serve traffic generated by the applicant's project, such as acceleration/deceleration lanes into and out of the project. (3) Approved credits for land dedication shall become effective when the land has been conveyed to the County and has been accepted by the County. (b) In order to receive credit for system improvements, the developer shall submit complete engineering drawings, specifications, and construction cost estimates or property appraisals to the impact fee administrator. The impact fee administrator shall determine the amount of credit due based on the information submitted, or where such information is inaccurate or unreliable, then on alternative engineering or construction costs acceptable to the impact fee administrator. The impact fee administrator may independently determine the amount of credit to be approved for land dedication by securing other property appraisals, or requiring submittal of other relevant information. (c) To qualify for an impact fee reimbursement credit, the developer must enter into an agreement with the County. At a minimum, the developer agreement shall specify the amount of the credit, and within how many years the developer will be reimbursed from impact fees collected by the County, assuming adequate funds are available for such repayment. (d) The County will allocate a maximum of 25 percent of annual impact fees collected for each facility type to reimburse developers for eligible improvement credits. If the amount allocated for reimbursements is not sufficient to make ail payments due to developers for that year, each developer will receive a pro rata share of the amount owed, and the unpaid amount will added to the amount owed for the following year. If less than 25 percent of annual impact fee collections is required for reimbursements in any given year, the remainder may be used for project expenditures. (e) Credits provided pursuant to this chapter shall be valid from the effective date of such credits until ten (10) years after such date. Section 36-13. Pre -ordinance offsets. (a) Owners of property for which capital contributions (system improvements, land dedications or fair share payments) were made prior to the effective date of this chapter may apply for an offset against impact fees for the same type of facilities. Offsets may be used to reduce the amount of impact fees due from the property on a dollar -for -dollar basis. (b) Application for such offsets must be made, on forms provide by the County, within one (1) year after the effective date of this chapter. (c) In the event that the impact -generating development for which the offset is claimed is partially completed, the amount of the offset shall be reduced by the amount of the impact fees that would have been charged for the completed portion of the development had this chapter been in effect. In the event that the impact - generating development project has been fully completed, no offset shall be authorized. Draft Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance Duncan Associates, September 15, 2006, p. 17 DRAFT (d) If some offset is warranted, the amount of the offset shall be determined by the impact fee administrator based on the information supplied by the property owner. The amount of the offset shall be equal to the cost of the improvement, the fair market value of the land dedicated or the amount of the fair share payment, inflated to present value. (e) The offset shall be applied against the impact fees due for building permits issued on the property until the amount of the offset is exhausted or the development project for which the capital contribution was made is completed. In no case shall any offset be transferred from the development project for which the capital contribution was made. Section 36-14. Miscellaneous provisions. (a) Nothing in this chapter shall restrict the County from requiring the construction of reasonable project improvements required to serve the development project, whether or not such improvement are of a type for which credits are available under Section 36-12, Post -Ordinance Reimbursements. (b) The impact fee administrator shall maintain accurate records of the impact fees paid, including the name of the person paying such fees, the project for which the fees were paid, the date of payment of each fee, the amounts received in payment for each fee, and any other matters that the County deems appropriate or necessary to the accurate accounting of such fees. Records shall be available for review by the public during normal business hours and with reasonable advance notice. '""A (c) Annually, the impact fee administrator shall present to the County Council a proposed capital improvements program that shall assign monies from each impact fee fund to specific projects and related expenses for eligible improvements of the type for which the fees in that fund were paid. Any monies, including any accrued interest, not assigned to specific projects within such capital improvements program and not expended pursuant to Section 36-11, Refunds, or Section 36-12, Post - Ordinance Reimbursements, shall be retained in the same impact fee fund until the next fiscal year. (d) If an impact fee has been calculated and paid based on a mistake or misrepresentation, it shall be recalculated. (1) Any amounts overpaid by an applicant shall be refunded by the impact fee administrator to the applicant within thirty (30) days after the acceptance of the recalculated amount, with interest since the date of such overpayment. (2) Any amounts underpaid by the applicant shall be paid to the impact fee administrator within thirty (30) days after the acceptance of the recalculated amount, with interest since the date of such underpayment. (3) In the case of an underpayment to the impact fee administrator, the County shall not issue any additional permits or approvals for the project for which the impact fee was previously underpaid until such underpayment is corrected, and if amounts owed to the County are not paid within such thirty (30) day period, the County may also rescind any permits issued in reliance on the previous payment of such impact fee. ,f► Draft Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance Duncan Associates, September 15, 2006, p. 18 ` # DRAFT (e) The impact fees and the administrative procedures established by this chapter shall be reviewed at least once every three (3) years. �r Section 36-15. Appeals. Any determination made by the impact fee administrator charged with the administration of any part of this chapter may be appealed to the County Council within thirty (30) days from the date of the decision appealed. Section 36-16. Violation. Furnishing false information on any matter relating to the administration of this chapter, including without limitation the furnishing of false information regarding the expected size, use, or impacts from a proposed development, shall be a violation of this chapter. Section 36-17. Effective date. The provisions of this chapter will take effect one year following the date of adoption of the ordinance creating this chapter. 'Wr+' w Draft Hawaii County Impact Fee Ordinance Duncan Associates, September 15, 2006, p. 19